Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Europeanunion

2008-09-19T17:16:26Z

Europeanunion: reorder and add content

{{userboxtop}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User Political Compass|-7|-8}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=GW |info=This user thinks that combating global warming has many good effects, regardless of whether GW is anthropogenic or not.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=Why? |info=This user thinks that nationalism is outdated.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= PR|info=This user supports proportional representation.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= SI|info=This user gladly uses the logical [[metric system]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= NV|info=This user believes in the power of non-violence and peace.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Hi!|info=This user believes that international migration is largely beneficial.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= CP|info=This user thinks that the [[death penalty]] should never be used.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= LGBT|info=This user is straight, and supports [[gay marriage]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Mercy|info=This user supports [[euthanasia]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Choice|info=This user supports [[abortion]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds discrimination illogical.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds religious conversion a violation of human rights.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sun|info=This user finds climatology really interesting.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sci|info=This user supports the evidence for each scientific paradigm, until it is proved wrong.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Bang|info=This user believes that the Universe began with a [[Big Bang]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Evo|info=This user thinks that [[evolution]] [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt10_head_Evolution%20myths explains] the origin of species.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=red |border-s=2 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#900 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id= But!|info=This user thinks that those who don't agree with me have the right to express it on Conservapedia.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==Myself==
[[Image:567rugyhj.png|thumb|left|The European Flag]]
Hello! I am a [[European]] citizen – I live in the [[European Union]], and pragmatically support its existence and aims. For now (at least until there are options that better represent my views), I largely support the [[Liberal Democrats|Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe]]: I am a social liberal, but not economically liberal. I am technically [[agnostic]], (honestly believing that we can never be certain, though I am not certain on that either!), but I believe that the existence of god(s) is very unlikely (say 1%). I am studying for a PhD in [[mathematical]] [[physics]], and like many Europeans, I am an [[environmentalist]].

I will mainly edit articles that I am interested in – such as those linked above, and add sections about Europe to articles with a worldwide scope (such as in geography, politics, culture et cetera). Hope you all have fun editing articles, I most certainly will have fun reading and adding to them!

==The nature of thought==
I know that, in all situations in life, there are multitudes of differing opinions. Often, that of those that disagree is considered 'stupid', 'deluded', 'obviously wrong', et cetera; if considered at all. Even worse are accusations of hypocrisy or bias, which suffer from such themselves – as all opinion inevitably does by definition. Some, realising this, opt to distance themselves from that which they consider suffers from such bias to the greatest detriment to their argument; only forwarding or legitimising that which substantiates their cause.

This disregard for entire swathes of research not only lends no credence to their views, but also makes them less likely to be the most accurate: there is so much to be gained by considering that one may be wrong, or at least that those that have been disregarded may not always be automatically wrong. This is also true of generalisation, stereotyping and prejudice – just because some that have a certain opinion engage in hypocrisy, delusion, selective referencing and illogicality, does not mean that they are wrong, does not mean that those with differing stances do not engage in similar acts, and certainly does not mean that all with similar opinions do also.

This is inevitably the case in some articles on Conservapedia: including [[Liberal bias]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. These articles are far beyond what would be considered mainstream in Europe; to many they are shocking and incredible. But it is part of the politics of the people in the United States in a way that it could not be elsewhere – it is the continuation of the traditions of rural North America, of conservative Christianity, and of its history and culture, wherever and whoever these people may be now. These notions have been abandoned by most people during the Enlightenment, revolutions, wars and secularisation of Europe and much of the western world, and hence the [[culture war]] seems foreign and possibly irrelevant or nonsensical by many in these countries.

It must be noted that although some say Wikipedia may be six-times more liberal than the average United States citizen (I'd say it wasn't that much, but I have never been to the U.S.), the average European probably sees Wikipedia as centrist or 'neutral' (basing this assumption on polls like the [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm Eurobarometer]). This is think is where the justification for Conservapedia lies: not as a protest to the more liberal Wikipedia, but as a conservative American alternative to a viewpoint that is more representative of foreign opinion.

To hear a politician say "God bless France" or "May the Lord look over Britain" would be met by bewilderment or confusion – [[Tony Blair]] had to retire before 'coming out' as Catholic, and there is no way that [[Sarah Palin]] would have been able to run for German Chancellor or Italian President. Religion is just not part of public life to most of society, nor are the views expressed in Conservapedia's articles.

However, I do not condone the removal of such articles, or demand creation of ones such as [[Conservative hypocrisy]] on this domain – we all have a right to purchase a domain and allow who we choose to contribute their views, and which of those views to keep and which to remove; once this is in place, any attempt by others to censor it are a violation of the universal freedom of speech. But, as with all views, they should always be challenged, not only does this develop argument skills, but it tests notions held on both sides and ensures that crackpot ideas are not allowed to flourish. I merely hope that readers of such articles will not automatically consider them representative of all conservatives, and I hope that the 'powers that be' will not always consider [[Conservative hypocrisy]] an invalid article or a non-existent act.

I know that the actions described above are entirely natural; they are part of what thought is – if a human does not believe that their opinions are right, then they do not have opinions. I know that it is extremely hard to overcome this seemingly logical process: to look at what others have to say, without prejudice to its validity, and to risk diluting one's own dearly held values in the search for truth. I don't expect that those that I debate with to always do this – I don't expect myself to – but I will always remember that it is possible, sometimes likely, that I am wrong and others are right, and I hope that others can at least try to also. If some do not, then it will not alter my view of their arguments, or any others which are similar, but I will be more careful when taking them at face value. I ask for you to do the same to me and those who share my views.

I will most likely disagree with many other users. Do not disregard my arguments – I will not yours. But, more importantly, do not consider me any different to you. I am not.

Gasoline pricing

2008-07-22T14:01:31Z

Europeanunion: created article (concise but lacking geographical range)

The '''price of gasoline''' (petroleum) varies nationally and internationally. The price is affected by crude oil prices, local [[supply and demand]], currency fluctuations, and taxation and subsidy levels.

==Pricing in the United States==
As of July 2008, the nationwide average price of gasoline was $4.05 per US gallon ($10.7 per liter).
State fuel taxes are on average 28.6 cents per US gallon, which combined with 18.4¢ Federal tax gives an average rate of 47 cents per US gallon (12.4 ¢/L).[http://www.gasbuddy.com/]

==Pricing around the world==
Gasoline in Canada costs on average 1.40 C$/L (5.22 US$/US gal). Fuel taxation is higher than in the US, but varies greatly from between 16.2 and 30.5 ¢/L (0.612 and 1.153 US$/US gal).[http://www.gasbuddy.com/]

In contrast with North America, gasoline prices in [[Europe]] are much higher – between two and four times more expensive, a consequence of high fuel taxation. [[Norway]] has the highest prices (13.78 NOK/L, 10.33 US$/US gal), due to a tax rate of 170% (US$1.42 per liter).[http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=no-no&FC2=/no-no/html/iwgen/shell_for_businesses/priser/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/no-no/html/iwgen/shell_for_businesses/priser/veiledende_priser.html]

The average price in the [[United Kingdom]] is 1.50 €/L (8.82 US$/US gal). Fuel duty is paid per liter, and 17.5% VAT is paid on the fuel ''and'' on the fuel duty. With a fuel price of 1.50 €/L, this combines to make an average tax rate of 134% (0.86 €/L).[http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel.html]

Some countries subsidise their gasoline, including Middle-Eastern Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and Asian counties Burma, Malaysia, China, and South Korea. The Venezuelan government, with vast oil reserves, maintains the world's cheapest gasoline, at 0.12 US$/US gal.[http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db20080523_344156.htm]

[[Category:Economics]]

User:Europeanunion

2008-06-16T15:56:59Z

Europeanunion: /* Myself */ correct

{{userboxtop}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User Political Compass|-7|-8}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=GW |info=This user thinks that combating global warming has many good effects, regardless of whether GW is anthropogenic or not.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=Why? |info=This user thinks that nationalism is outdated.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= PR|info=This user supports proportional representation.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= SI|info=This user gladly uses the logical [[metric system]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= NV|info=This user believes in the power of non-violence and peace.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Hi!|info=This user believes that international migration is largely beneficial.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= CP|info=This user thinks that the [[death penalty]] should never be used.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= LGBT|info=This user is straight, and supports [[gay marriage]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Mercy|info=This user supports [[euthanasia]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Choice|info=This user supports [[abortion]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds discrimination illogical.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds religious conversion a violation of human rights.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sun|info=This user finds climatology really interesting.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sci|info=This user supports the evidence for each scientific paradigm, until it is proved wrong.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Bang|info=This user believes that the Universe began with a [[Big Bang]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Evo|info=This user thinks that [[evolution]] [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt10_head_Evolution%20myths explains] the origin of species.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=red |border-s=2 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#900 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id= But!|info=This user thinks that those who don't agree with me have the right to express it on Conservapedia.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==Myself==
[[Image:567rugyhj.png|thumb|left|The European Flag]]
Hello! I am a [[European]] citizen – I live in the [[European Union]], and pragmatically support its existence and aims. For now (at least until there are options that better represent my ever-changing ideology), I largely support the [[Liberal Democrats|Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe]]: I am a social liberal, but not economically liberal. I am an [[agnostic]] (honestly believing that we can never be certain, though I am not certain on that either!), but I believe that the existence of god(s) is very unlikely. I am studying for a PhD in [[mathematical]] [[physics]], and like many Europeans, I am an [[environmentalist]].

I will mainly edit articles that I am interested in – such as those linked above, and add sections about Europe to articles with a worldwide scope (such as in geography, politics, culture et cetera). Hope you all have fun editing articles, I most certainly will have fun reading and adding to them!

==The nature of thought==
I know that, in all situations in life, there are multitudes of differing opinions. Often, that of those that disagree is considered 'stupid', 'deluded', 'obviously wrong', et cetera; if considered at all. Even worse are accusations of hypocrisy or bias, which suffer from such themselves – as all opinion inevitably does by definition. Some, realising this, opt to distance themselves from that which they consider suffers from such bias to the greatest detriment to their argument; only forwarding or legitimising that which substantiates their cause.

This disregard for entire swathes of research not only lends no credence to their views, but also makes them less likely to be the most accurate: there is so much to be gained by considering that one may be wrong, or at least that those that have been disregarded may not always be automatically wrong. This is also true of generalisation, stereotyping and prejudice – just because some that have a certain opinion engage in hypocrisy, delusion, selective referencing and illogicality, does not mean that they are wrong, does not mean that those with differing stances do not engage in similar acts, and certainly does not mean that all with similar opinions do also.

This is inevitably the case in some articles on Conservapedia: including [[Liberal bias]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. However, I do not condone their removal, or changing them in any way, or demand creation of articles such as [[Conservative hypocrisy]] on this domain – we all have a right to purchase a domain and allow who we choose to contribute their views, and which of those views to keep and which to remove; once this is in place, any attempt by others to censor it are a violation of the universal freedom of speech. I merely hope that readers of such articles will not automatically consider them representative, and I hope that the 'powers that be' will not always consider [[Conservative hypocrisy]] an invalid article or a non-existent act.

It must be noted that although some say Wikipedia may be six-times more liberal than the average United States citizen (I assume this is inferred from polls on issues which correlate with such beliefs), the average European is probably as liberal as Wikipedia, and six-times more liberal than Conservapedia (basing this assumption on polls like the [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm Eurobarometer]). This is think is where the justification for Conservapedia lies: not as a protest to the liberally-biased Wikipedia, but as an American alternative to what is a more foreign viewpoint.

I also know that the actions described above are entirely natural; they are part of what thought is – if a human does not believe that their opinions are right, then they do not have opinions. I know that it is extremely hard to overcome this seemingly logical process: to look at what others have to say, without prejudice to its validity, and to risk diluting one's own dearly held values in the search for truth. I don't expect that those that I debate with to always do this – I don't expect myself to – but I will always remember that it is possible, sometimes even likely, that I am wrong and others are right, and I hope that others can at least try to also. If some do not, then it will not alter my view of their arguments, or any others which are similar, but I will be more careful when taking them at face value. I ask for you to do the same to me and those who share my views.

I will most likely disagree with many other users. Do not disregard my arguments – I will not yours. But, more importantly, do not consider me any different to you. I am not.

Talk:European Union

2008-06-16T15:55:37Z

Europeanunion: main page correction

==Main page==
I couldn't think of anywhere else to put this, so I put it here!

On the main page it says: "Ireland stuns globalists by rejecting the EU by a wide margin, 53.4-46.6%.[6]". This is true, except they didn't reject the EU (Ireland is already in the EU), but they rejected ratification of a Treaty to reform it (the Treaty of Lisbon).

I consider saying that is more appropriate to the sentence, as it makes clear that the Irish rejected a form of globalisation (i.e. greater EU integration). I hope that the sentence can be changed. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 11:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

User:Europeanunion

2008-05-11T09:55:25Z

Europeanunion: pc

{{userboxtop}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User Political Compass|-7|-8}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=GW |info=This user thinks that combating global warming has many good effects, regardless of whether GW is anthropogenic or not.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=Why? |info=This user thinks that nationalism is outdated.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= PR|info=This user supports proportional representation.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= SI|info=This user gladly uses the logical [[metric system]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= NV|info=This user believes in the power of non-violence and peace.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Hi!|info=This user believes that international migration is largely beneficial.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= CP|info=This user thinks that the [[death penalty]] should never be used.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= LGBT|info=This user is straight, and supports [[gay marriage]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Mercy|info=This user supports [[euthanasia]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Choice|info=This user supports [[abortion]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds discrimination illogical.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds religious conversion a violation of human rights.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sun|info=This user finds climatology really interesting.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sci|info=This user supports the evidence for each scientific paradigm, until it is proved wrong.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Bang|info=This user believes that the Universe began with a [[Big Bang]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Evo|info=This user thinks that [[evolution]] [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt10_head_Evolution%20myths explains] the origin of species.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=red |border-s=2 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#900 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id= But!|info=This user thinks that those who don't agree with me have the right to express it on Conservapedia.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==Myself==
[[Image:567rugyhj.png|thumb|left|The European Flag]]
Hello! I am a [[European]] citizen – I live in the [[European Union]], and pragmatically support its existence and aims. For now (at least until there are options that better represent my ever-changing ideology), I largely support the [[Liberal Democrats|Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe]]: I am a social liberal, but not economically liberal. I am an [[agnostic]] (honestly believing that we can never be certain, though I am not certain on that either!), but I believe that the existence of god(s) is almost certainly [[atheism|extremely unlikely]], to the extent that it is acceptable to ignore that possibility for all reasonable purposes. I am studying for a PhD in [[mathematical]] [[physics]], and like many Europeans, I am an [[environmentalist]].

I will mainly edit articles that I am interested in – such as those linked above, and add sections about Europe to articles with a worldwide scope (such as in geography, politics, culture et cetera). Hope you all have fun editing articles, I most certainly will have fun reading and adding to them!

==The nature of thought==
I know that, in all situations in life, there are multitudes of differing opinions. Often, that of those that disagree is considered 'stupid', 'deluded', 'obviously wrong', et cetera; if considered at all. Even worse are accusations of hypocrisy or bias, which suffer from such themselves – as all opinion inevitably does by definition. Some, realising this, opt to distance themselves from that which they consider suffers from such bias to the greatest detriment to their argument; only forwarding or legitimising that which substantiates their cause.

This disregard for entire swathes of research not only lends no credence to their views, but also makes them less likely to be the most accurate: there is so much to be gained by considering that one may be wrong, or at least that those that have been disregarded may not always be automatically wrong. This is also true of generalisation, stereotyping and prejudice – just because some that have a certain opinion engage in hypocrisy, delusion, selective referencing and illogicality, does not mean that they are wrong, does not mean that those with differing stances do not engage in similar acts, and certainly does not mean that all with similar opinions do also.

This is inevitably the case in some articles on Conservapedia: including [[Liberal bias]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. However, I do not condone their removal, or changing them in any way, or demand creation of articles such as [[Conservative hypocrisy]] on this domain – we all have a right to purchase a domain and allow who we choose to contribute their views, and which of those views to keep and which to remove; once this is in place, any attempt by others to censor it are a violation of the universal freedom of speech. I merely hope that readers of such articles will not automatically consider them representative, and I hope that the 'powers that be' will not always consider [[Conservative hypocrisy]] an invalid article or a non-existent act.

It must be noted that although some say Wikipedia may be six-times more liberal than the average United States citizen (I assume this is inferred from polls on issues which correlate with such beliefs), the average European is probably as liberal as Wikipedia, and six-times more liberal than Conservapedia (basing this assumption on polls like the [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm Eurobarometer]). This is think is where the justification for Conservapedia lies: not as a protest to the liberally-biased Wikipedia, but as an American alternative to what is a more foreign viewpoint.

I also know that the actions described above are entirely natural; they are part of what thought is – if a human does not believe that their opinions are right, then they do not have opinions. I know that it is extremely hard to overcome this seemingly logical process: to look at what others have to say, without prejudice to its validity, and to risk diluting one's own dearly held values in the search for truth. I don't expect that those that I debate with to always do this – I don't expect myself to – but I will always remember that it is possible, sometimes even likely, that I am wrong and others are right, and I hope that others can at least try to also. If some do not, then it will not alter my view of their arguments, or any others which are similar, but I will be more careful when taking them at face value. I ask for you to do the same to me and those who share my views.

I will most likely disagree with many other users. Do not disregard my arguments – I will not yours. But, more importantly, do not consider me any different to you. I am not.

User:Europeanunion

2008-05-11T09:51:23Z

Europeanunion: /* Myself */ rw

{{userboxtop}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User Political Compass|-4.00|-7.18}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=GW |info=This user thinks that combating global warming has many good effects, regardless of whether GW is anthropogenic or not.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=Why? |info=This user thinks that nationalism is outdated.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= PR|info=This user supports proportioanl representation.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= SI|info=This user gladly uses the logical [[metric system]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= NV|info=This user believes in the power of non-violence and peace.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Hi!|info=This user believes that international migration is largely beneficial.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= CP|info=This user thinks that the [[death penalty]] should never be used.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= LGBT|info=This user is straight, and supports [[gay marriage]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Mercy|info=This user supports [[euthanasia]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Choice|info=This user supports [[abortion]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds discrimination illogical.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds religious conversion a violation of human rights.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sun|info=This user finds climatology really interesting.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sci|info=This user supports the evidence for each scientific paradigm, until it is proved wrong.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Bang|info=This user believes that the Universe began with a [[Big Bang]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Evo|info=This user thinks that [[evolution]] [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt10_head_Evolution%20myths explains] the origin of species.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=red |border-s=2 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#900 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id= But!|info=This user thinks that those who don't agree with me have the right to express it on Conservapedia.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==Myself==
[[Image:567rugyhj.png|thumb|left|The European Flag]]
Hello! I am a [[European]] citizen – I live in the [[European Union]], and pragmatically support its existence and aims. For now (at least until there are options that better represent my ever-changing ideology), I largely support the [[Liberal Democrats|Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe]]: I am a social liberal, but not economically liberal. I am an [[agnostic]] (honestly believing that we can never be certain, though I am not certain on that either!), but I believe that the existence of god(s) is almost certainly [[atheism|extremely unlikely]], to the extent that it is acceptable to ignore that possibility for all reasonable purposes. I am studying for a PhD in [[mathematical]] [[physics]], and like many Europeans, I am an [[environmentalist]].

I will mainly edit articles that I am interested in – such as those linked above, and add sections about Europe to articles with a worldwide scope (such as in geography, politics, culture et cetera). Hope you all have fun editing articles, I most certainly will have fun reading and adding to them!

==The nature of thought==
I know that, in all situations in life, there are multitudes of differing opinions. Often, that of those that disagree is considered 'stupid', 'deluded', 'obviously wrong', et cetera; if considered at all. Even worse are accusations of hypocrisy or bias, which suffer from such themselves – as all opinion inevitably does by definition. Some, realising this, opt to distance themselves from that which they consider suffers from such bias to the greatest detriment to their argument; only forwarding or legitimising that which substantiates their cause.

This disregard for entire swathes of research not only lends no credence to their views, but also makes them less likely to be the most accurate: there is so much to be gained by considering that one may be wrong, or at least that those that have been disregarded may not always be automatically wrong. This is also true of generalisation, stereotyping and prejudice – just because some that have a certain opinion engage in hypocrisy, delusion, selective referencing and illogicality, does not mean that they are wrong, does not mean that those with differing stances do not engage in similar acts, and certainly does not mean that all with similar opinions do also.

This is inevitably the case in some articles on Conservapedia: including [[Liberal bias]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. However, I do not condone their removal, or changing them in any way, or demand creation of articles such as [[Conservative hypocrisy]] on this domain – we all have a right to purchase a domain and allow who we choose to contribute their views, and which of those views to keep and which to remove; once this is in place, any attempt by others to censor it are a violation of the universal freedom of speech. I merely hope that readers of such articles will not automatically consider them representative, and I hope that the 'powers that be' will not always consider [[Conservative hypocrisy]] an invalid article or a non-existent act.

It must be noted that although some say Wikipedia may be six-times more liberal than the average United States citizen (I assume this is inferred from polls on issues which correlate with such beliefs), the average European is probably as liberal as Wikipedia, and six-times more liberal than Conservapedia (basing this assumption on polls like the [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm Eurobarometer]). This is think is where the justification for Conservapedia lies: not as a protest to the liberally-biased Wikipedia, but as an American alternative to what is a more foreign viewpoint.

I also know that the actions described above are entirely natural; they are part of what thought is – if a human does not believe that their opinions are right, then they do not have opinions. I know that it is extremely hard to overcome this seemingly logical process: to look at what others have to say, without prejudice to its validity, and to risk diluting one's own dearly held values in the search for truth. I don't expect that those that I debate with to always do this – I don't expect myself to – but I will always remember that it is possible, sometimes even likely, that I am wrong and others are right, and I hope that others can at least try to also. If some do not, then it will not alter my view of their arguments, or any others which are similar, but I will be more careful when taking them at face value. I ask for you to do the same to me and those who share my views.

I will most likely disagree with many other users. Do not disregard my arguments – I will not yours. But, more importantly, do not consider me any different to you. I am not.

Europe

2008-05-11T09:49:14Z

Europeanunion: references

[[Image:Europe pol 2004.jpg|thumb|300 px|Political map of Europe]]
[[Image:Europe ref04.jpg|thumb|300 px|Shaded relief map of Europe]]
'''Europe''' is the [[continent]]al landmass of Eurasia consisting of the general area to the west of the Ural Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. With an area of 3,998,000 square miles it ranks as the second-smallest of the continents, but in terms of population (727, 000,000 in 2007) it is the third-largest.

Long a center of culture, art, philosophy, and government, Europe was the birthplace of democracy; the art and architecture of the Renaissance; the springboard of the great age of exploration; and the beginnings of the industrial age. Several major empires inhabited the continent: Greece, Rome, Byzantium, the Ottomans, the Holy Roman, the French, and the German, each producing great achievements for posterity, as well as sparking wars and conflicts which exist to this day.

==Land==
Europe is considered to begin at the Ural Mountains, a chain running north-south in present-day Russia. The Caucasus, another mountain chain between the Black and Caspian Seas, forms the southern land boundary. Its remaining boundaries are coastlines; the Arctic Ocean, the North and Norwegian Seas, the Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. The northernmost point on the mainland is Cape Nordkinn, Norway; the southernmost in Spain at Punta de Tarifa.

===Topography===
===Climate===
Cool winters and mild summers are typical of the climate in northern Europe, the result of the warm currents brought by the Atlantic Ocean as well as prevailing westerly winds. The climate of southern Europe is Mediterranean, usually hot in summer, with most rainfall taking place in winter. A colder climate begins in central Poland eastward, typified by drier conditions and, especially in Russia, severely-cold winters.

===Drainage===
The major rivers in western Europe originate in the mountain ranges of central Europe. The Rhine, Rhone, Elbe, Seine and Vistula flow from the Alps and the Balkans northward, emptying into the English Channel, North and Baltic seas; the Po and Rubicon rivers flow into the Mediterranean Sea, while the [[Danube]] flows into the Black Sea. Long a navigable river, the [[Danube]] is further connected via locks and canals to the Rhine, ensuring a centuries-long free flow of commerce from both sides of Europe into the interior. In eastern Europe the major rivers flow towards the south, emptying in the Black and Caspian seas; among them are the Dnepr, Donets, and Volga. With the exception of the Mediterranean rivers, all European rivers have an even rate of flow as a result of an even spread of yearly precipitation; the faster-flowing rivers, particularly in the mountain highlands and Scandinavia, also aid in the production of hydroelectric power for home and industry.

===Flora===
Forests covered a large part of Europe as late as the 19th century, but human activities have cleared a many areas for farming. Still, a large amount of forested land remains, as well as those acres that have been re-planted or re-grown after human abandonment.

A mixed coniferous-deciduous belt dominates a vegetation zone across the central portion of the continent from east to west, characterized by oak, elm and maple mingled with fir and pine. Spruce and pine dominate inland northern Europe as a result of cool, but mild temperatures. Tundra is characteristic of the Arctic land regions, consisting of shrubs, wild flowers, lichens and mosses. To the east is the European Plain, an expanse of prairie grass which gives way to the Ukrainian steppe and its short grasses of a drier climate.

===Fauna===
The lakes and rivers support an abundance of fish, including trout and salmon, while the coastal areas and inland seas support tuna, sardines, sturgeon, cod, haddock, halibut, and many others. Birds are widespread as well, including eagles, storks, ravens, and seabirds.

Although there are many mammal species on the continent (deer, lemmings, beaver, etc), they have been hard hit as a result of man's long occupation in Europe. The once common brown bear (''Ursus arctos'') is now restricted to isolated pockets of the Pyrenees and the far north of Scandinavia. The wisent (''Bison bonasus''), the largest mammal on the continent, has been over-hunted so extensively that only a few managed herds survive in central Poland, while a relative, the larger aurochs (''Bos primigenius'') was killed off by 1627.

===Mineral resources===
Coal is found extensively in Britain, Spain, France, the Ruhr of Germany, Belgium, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and the Ukraine. Oil and natural gas deposits lie throughout Europe, with the two most important regions within Russia and the North Sea. Nickel, tin, bauxite, copper, lead, gypsum, manganese, lead, and iron ore have been mined extensively and traded. Marble, such as that from Carrera, Italy, is used in monumental architecture and statuary.

===Arable land===
==People==

===Ethnic groups===
A large number of diverse ethnic groups live on the continent, associated by common culture and language. Several of the European nations are composed of one predominant ethnic group, i.e. Greeks in Greece, Spanish in Spain. Several of these countries have a distinctive minority, such as the Laplanders of northern Norway and Finland.

===Languages===
The vast majority of the languages spoken on the European continent come from the [[Indo-European]] language family. Within this category, the three largest European branches are the [[Romance]] (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian); [[Germanic]] (German, English, Danish, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic); and [[Slavic]] (Russian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian). Other major languages include Celtic (Gaelic, Welsh, Breton), Greek and Albanian, as well as minor languages within the Finno-Ugric group (Hungarian, Finnish, Saami). Turkish is predominate on the continent within the Istanbul region of Turkey.

Several of the European languages were spread world-wide over the past five hundred years as a result of trade, colonization, or political/military power; as a result, French, English, Spanish, and German are second languages for many people.

===Religion===
The dominant religion in Europe is Christianity, with the Roman Catholic Church the largest single sect, forming a major part of the lives of people in France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland. The Protestants are several churches which originally broke away from the Catholic Church beginning in the 16th century, the most famous being the Lutheran Church, and are the major religion of Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom. The third major Christian religion is Eastern Orthodoxy, mainly in eastern Europe, of which the Greek and Russian sects are well known.

Europe is now the least Christian and the most secularized and socialized part of the world.<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/05/02/europe-the-dark-continent/ Europe: The Dark Continent]</ref>

In addition to Turkey, Islam has established itself as the dominant religion in the Balkan countries of Albania and Serbia.

===Education===
===Health===
===Demography===
==Economy and Commerce==
===Industry===
===Agriculture===
European farmers produce a mixed variety of crops yearly, with wheat producing the largest yield, especially within the Ukraine. Other crops include barley, oats, rye, corn, potatoes, beets, beans, peas, and sugar beets. Southern Europe is noted for the production of grapes for the wine industry, olives, pistachio nuts, and citrus fruits; the first two (grapes and olives) have become important to the identity as well as the economy of the countries which produce them. Animal production includes beef (especially in Spain), pigs, goats, and poultry.

===Forestry===
===Fishing===
===Transportation===
===Trade===
International and intercontinental trade on a large scale is conducted by nearly all European countries, with the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom among the largest trading nations in the world.

== History ==

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Continents]]

Europe

2008-05-11T09:47:55Z

Europeanunion: /* Religion */ GB-> UK, and secular ref (from main page)

User:Europeanunion

2008-04-21T14:34:16Z

Europeanunion: EL

{{userboxtop}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User Political Compass|-4.00|-7.18}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=GW |info=This user thinks that combating global warming has many good effects, regardless of whether GW is anthropogenic or not.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=Why? |info=This user thinks that nationalism is outdated.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= PR|info=This user supports proportioanl representation.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= SI|info=This user gladly uses the logical [[metric system]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= NV|info=This user believes in the power of non-violence and peace.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Hi!|info=This user believes that international migration is largely beneficial.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= CP|info=This user thinks that the [[death penalty]] should never be used.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= LGBT|info=This user is straight, and supports [[gay marriage]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Mercy|info=This user supports [[euthanasia]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Choice|info=This user supports [[abortion]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds discrimination illogical.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds religious conversion a violation of human rights.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sun|info=This user finds climatology really interesting.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sci|info=This user supports the evidence for each scientific paradigm, until it is proved wrong.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Bang|info=This user believes that the Universe began with a [[Big Bang]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Evo|info=This user thinks that [[evolution]] [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt10_head_Evolution%20myths explains] the origin of species.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=red |border-s=2 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#900 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id= But!|info=This user thinks that those who don't agree with me have the right to express it on Conservapedia.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==Myself==
[[Image:567rugyhj.png|thumb|left|The European Flag]]
Hello! I am a [[European]] citizen – I live in the [[European Union]], and pragmatically support its existence and aims. For now (at least until there are options that better represent my – ever-changing – ideology), I largely support the [[Liberal Democrats|Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe]]: I am a social liberal, but not neo-liberal. I am an [[agnostic]] (honestly believing that we can never be certain, though I am not certain on that either!), but I believe that the existence of god(s) is almost certainly [[atheism|extremely unlikely]], to the extent that it is acceptable to ignore that possibility for all reasonable purposes. I am studying for a PhD in [[mathematical]] [[physics]], and like many Europeans, I am an [[environmentalist]].

I will mainly edit articles that I am interested in – such as those linked above, and add sections about Europe to articles with a worldwide scope (such as in geography, politics, culture et cetera). Hope you all have fun editing articles, I most certainly will have fun reading and adding to them!

==The nature of thought==
I know that, in all situations in life, there are multitudes of differing opinions. Often, that of those that disagree is considered 'stupid', 'deluded', 'obviously wrong', et cetera; if considered at all. Even worse are accusations of hypocrisy or bias, which suffer from such themselves – as all opinion inevitably does by definition. Some, realising this, opt to distance themselves from that which they consider suffers from such bias to the greatest detriment to their argument; only forwarding or legitimising that which substantiates their cause.

This disregard for entire swathes of research not only lends no credence to their views, but also makes them less likely to be the most accurate: there is so much to be gained by considering that one may be wrong, or at least that those that have been disregarded may not always be automatically wrong. This is also true of generalisation, stereotyping and prejudice – just because some that have a certain opinion engage in hypocrisy, delusion, selective referencing and illogicality, does not mean that they are wrong, does not mean that those with differing stances do not engage in similar acts, and certainly does not mean that all with similar opinions do also.

This is inevitably the case in some articles on Conservapedia: including [[Liberal bias]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. However, I do not condone their removal, or changing them in any way, or demand creation of articles such as [[Conservative hypocrisy]] on this domain – we all have a right to purchase a domain and allow who we choose to contribute their views, and which of those views to keep and which to remove; once this is in place, any attempt by others to censor it are a violation of the universal freedom of speech. I merely hope that readers of such articles will not automatically consider them representative, and I hope that the 'powers that be' will not always consider [[Conservative hypocrisy]] an invalid article or a non-existent act.

It must be noted that although some say Wikipedia may be six-times more liberal than the average United States citizen (I assume this is inferred from polls on issues which correlate with such beliefs), the average European is probably as liberal as Wikipedia, and six-times more liberal than Conservapedia (basing this assumption on polls like the [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm Eurobarometer]). This is think is where the justification for Conservapedia lies: not as a protest to the liberally-biased Wikipedia, but as an American alternative to what is a more foreign viewpoint.

I also know that the actions described above are entirely natural; they are part of what thought is – if a human does not believe that their opinions are right, then they do not have opinions. I know that it is extremely hard to overcome this seemingly logical process: to look at what others have to say, without prejudice to its validity, and to risk diluting one's own dearly held values in the search for truth. I don't expect that those that I debate with to always do this – I don't expect myself to – but I will always remember that it is possible, sometimes even likely, that I am wrong and others are right, and I hope that others can at least try to also. If some do not, then it will not alter my view of their arguments, or any others which are similar, but I will be more careful when taking them at face value. I ask for you to do the same to me and those who share my views.

I will most likely disagree with many other users. Do not disregard my arguments – I will not yours. But, more importantly, do not consider me any different to you. I am not.

Politics of global warming

2008-04-15T11:30:49Z

Europeanunion: added europe info with 3 references

{{uncited}}

The '''politics of global warming''' is dominated by advocates who urge action to "prevent" [[global warming]], generally on the grounds that the [[Modern Warming]] period is headed for ecological catastrophe. These advocates are predominantly [[liberal]]s and [[environmentalist]]s and are opposed by [[conservative]]s.

==US politics==

Registered voters are evenly divided on the issue, with 75% of Democrats believing the science supports AGW theory but only 23% of Republicans believing this.

Since the issue came to the fore in 1989, neither president - [[Bill Clinton]] or [[George W. Bush]] - has sent the [[Kyoto Protocol]] treaty to the Senate for ratification. A bipartisan Senate resolution disapproved the notion of joining the treaty 93-0.

Some sources date the flip-flop from [[global cooling]] hype to [[global warming]] hysteria to 1989, when the [[Berlin Wall]] fell. With the [[Cold War]] won by the forces of democracy and freedom, supporters of totalitarian socialism had to find a new issue. <ref>"The global warming circus was in full swing. Meetings were going on nonstop. One of the more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in Sundance, Utah. Redford proclaimed that it was time to stop the research and begin acting. I suppose that that was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it was also indicative of the overall attitude towards science. Barbara Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep made an appeal on public television to stop warming. A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans a stable climate." [http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I_2.html] </ref>

==EU politics==
All 27 member states of the [[European Union]] have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, as has the EU itself. In 2000 the European Climate Change Programme was launched to provide a strategy to implement Kyoto: the targets assigned for each member state vary, with western states cutting emissions more than eastern ones – to make an average cut of 8% by 2012, 20% to 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2050.<ref>http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/01_energy_policy_for_europe_en.pdf An Energy Policy for Europe</ref> Some member states have agreed to further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions; [[Germany]] had already cut emissions by 17.2% in 2004, so is pressing for tougher targets in future, and the [[United Kingdom]] parliament has proposed a Climate Change Bill to cut GHGs by 60% by 2050 (several parties including the [[Liberal Democrats]] have pushed for 80% or 100% reduction targets).<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6444145.stm 'Binding' carbon targets proposed</ref> All vehicles produced in the EU from 2012 will have to emit less than 120 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre (equivalent to at least 47 miles per gallon for diesel, 55 mpg for petrol): the most stringent law in the world.<ref>http://ec.europa.eu/environment/news/efe/24/article_4119_en.htm European strategy targets car emissions</ref>

==International politics==

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ([[IPCC]]) has issued a series of reports endorsing the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]. Supporters of this theory call the IPCC assessments authoritative, and use this as the basis to justify ratification of the global warming treaty (see [[Kyoto Protocol]]).

==Loss of objectivity among scientists==
[[Hans von Storch]] and [[Nico Stehr]] wrote:
:In an article we published in the professional journal ''Science'' in October 2004, we were able to demonstrate that the underlying methodology that led to this [[hockey stick curve]] is flawed. Our intention was to turn back the spiral of exaggerations somewhat, but without calling the core statement into question, which is that human-induced climate change does exist. Prominent members of the climate research community did not respond to the article by engaging use in a dispute over the facts. Instead, they were concerned that the worthy cause of climate protection had been harmed. [http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html]

==Distortion of the facts==

Supporters of Kyoto have famously asserted that temperatures in 1998-2007 are the highest in 1,000 years. However, peer-reviewed research published in scientific journals challenges this claim.

In 2003, the "[[hockey stick graph]]" of [[Michael Mann]] was examined by McIntyre and McKitrick in ''Energy & Environment''. They found that:
:the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. [http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf]

==Notes==
<references/>

==External links==

*[http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear] - By Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr

[[category:politics]]
[[category:climate change]]

Devolution

2008-04-07T15:01:42Z

Europeanunion: +info, and grammar

'''Devolution''' is the granting of powers to a lower level of government, while preserving sovereignty to the granting level. Unlike the federal arrangements of countries such as the [[United States of America]], devolution reserves supreme power to the granting level.

In other words, the granting level (the United Kingdom Parliament) can pass legislation which overrides legislation of the lower level (the Scottish Parliament) and it can even withdraw those powers at any time.

Former schemes of devolution in the United Kingdom: 
*the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 - suspended in 1972
*the Scotland and Wales Acts, 1978 - both were rejected in referenda

Schemes of devolutions which are implemented at present:
*The [[Belfast Agreement]], also known as the ‘Good Friday’ Agreement for Northern Ireland, 1998
*the Scotland Act, 1998
*the Wales Act, 1998

It is important to bear in mind that the level and amount of devolution in these three [[constituent country | constituent countries]] are different, and that [[England]] has no devolved powers.

== See also ==
[[Scottish Parliament]] 
[[Northern Ireland Assembly]] 
[[National Assembly for Wales]]

[[Category: Politics]]
[[Category: British Politics]]

European Liberalism

2008-04-07T14:58:23Z

Europeanunion: minor grammar

'''European Liberalism''' is a term used to describe the predominant [[liberal]] political culture in [[Europe]]. In contrast with American Liberalism, European liberals tend to favour less government control of the economy, in contrast to any social democratic or [[socialist]] rivals for power. Most of the European Christian Democrat parties are considered to be liberal in the European sense.
[[Category:Politics]]

Insularity

2008-04-07T14:55:00Z

Europeanunion: clarified situation

'''Insularity''' refers to [[geography|geographical]] separation, such as that of an [[island]], as well as the associated political attitudes that are similar to [[isolationism]].<ref>Almond, Gabriel A. ''Comparative Politics Today: A World View''. New York: Pearson, 2004.</ref> An example of an insularity is the [[United Kingdom]], whose membership of the [[European Union]] normally would have included adoption of the [[euro]], but the government chose to seek an opt out from being required to replace the [[pound sterling]], until adoption was seen to be more economically beneficial.

<references/>

[[Category:geography]]
[[Category:politics]]

Homosexuality laws

2008-04-07T14:48:24Z

Europeanunion: /* In the European Union */ links

The world's '''homosexuality laws''' are currently diverse. For example, while the [[Netherlands]] recognizes same-sex marriages, under [[Saudi Arabia]]n law a person might face the death penalty for homosexual acts, although other penalties may be used in lieu of the death penalty.<ref>[http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=156&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport Media Cry ‘Marriage’ As Homosexual Couples Tie the Knot in Germany ]</ref><ref>[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm Homosexuality and Islam]</ref>

==In the United States==
[[Image:Antonin.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Antonin Scalia]]]]
In [[Homosexualty and American Law|Homosexuality and American Law]], treatment of homosexuals by the law has increasingly suggested that discrimination based on homosexuality employs a "[[suspect classification]]" subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]" under modern [[Fourteenth Amendment]] [[jurisprudence]], with judges and scholars employing language to equate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with already forbidden [[racial discrimination]] practices.<ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving Lawrence," available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=512662</ref> Where federal law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals remains scant, the several states have more than taken up the burden, and many have made sexual-orientation based discrimination actionable at law and equity.<ref>See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. Code, s 8-107</ref> Perhaps this can be seen as an example of the robustness of the [[United States]]' [[federal system]], as the states are acting just as Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] and [[Justice Brandeis]] expressed hope that they would, as "laboratories" of experimentation on the border of developed federal law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al, "Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials," Fifth Edition.</ref>

The [[Supreme Court]] recently overturned a [[Texas]] law banning sodomy. The majority opinion, written by [[Justice Kennedy]], suggests that all forms of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, are now subject to [[rational basis review]], and will be frowned upon unless a legitimate state interest in the discrimination is expressed. Justice Kennedy also held that the need to legislate morals by the states' [[police power]] is no longer a legitimate state interest, absent specific physical harms being proven. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote a blistering dissent, characterizing the opinion as including phrases which will become the "dicta that ate the [[Rule of Law|rule of law]]."<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>

==In the European Union==
[[Image:European Union.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|Laws in EU member states vary, but in general are less anti-gay than in most countries.]]
Laws protecting the rights of homosexuals in the [[European Union]] are more extensive than in the United States. All 27 member states have decriminalised homosexual acts, and have laws against anti-gay discrimination: seven ban some types of discrimination, four ban most types, and sixteen ban all discrimination based on sexuality. Twenty-four members (all except [[Cyprus]], [[Greece]] and [[Latvia]]) allow openly gay individuals to serve in the military. [[Belgium]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Spain]] recognise [[same-sex marriage]] ([[Sweden]] will in 2009), ten recognise [[Civil union|same-sex unions]], and two recognise [[Domestic partnership|cohabitation]]. The issue is under consideration in [[Greece]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], [[Italy]] and [[Romania]]; Cyprus does not recognise any form of union, and [[Latvia]], [[Lithuania]] and [[Poland]] have a constitutional ban.

Same-sex couples can legally adopt any child in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the [[United Kingdom]], and can adopt the children of one of the partners in [[Germany]] and [[Denmark]]. In Ireland, both partners can foster children, but only one can adopt, and in [[France]], a single homosexual person can adopt. The other eighteen member states do not allow same-sex couples to adopt any child. Forty-four percent of EU citizens agreed that same-sex marriages should be legal across the EU; more than half agreed in Belgium, the [[Czech Republic]], Denmark, Germany, [[Luxembourg]], the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden; and less than 15% agreed in [[Bulgaria]], Cyprus, Greece, Latvia and Romania.<ref>[http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14203 Eight EU Countries Back Same-Sex Marriage]</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Law]]

User talk:Europeanunion

2008-04-07T13:51:09Z

Europeanunion: done it

{{welcome|sig=[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:00, 29 March 2008 (EDT)}}
:Welcome to Conservapedia. I really like your userpage; you make a lot of good points. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:00, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
:PS: while "liberal" may mean "moderate" across the sea, "-4.00/-7.18" well... isn't ;-)

==Warning==

No matter what the provocation, do not respond with insults or [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks|personal remarks]]. Comments like this aren't helpful:

:You seem to be confusing censorship with moving something to a different place; you well know that this suggestion is not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be, rather paranoiacally, confusing the legitimate opinion of a sentence's logicality/legitimacy with some form of opinion

Don't talk about the person (with "you statements") but about what they've written. For example, you might say, "Censorship is different from moving something to a different place. And there's differenc between ... and ..." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:37, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:I have defined the terms used in that remark, and honestly believe that they are applicable; they were not meant as insults but as definitions as the said reply. Again I apologise if offence was interpreted.
I will take on board your suggestion to reword one's sentences in the manner given in your example - it does seem more neutral. Thank you =) [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 08:48, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Email ==

Hey, if you don't mind, could you enable your email? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:53, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:How? --[[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 14:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::Click on "my preferences" in the top corner, enter your email address (if it's not there already), then you have to check the checkbox which says "enable e-mail from other users". Then I think you are sent a confirmation email; I have had it sent to my spam box before so be sure to check that if you don't get one. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::What does this enable? --[[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 15:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::If you don't choose any of the notifications, it just allows other users to use the "E-mail this user" link to send you an email. If someone sends you an email (hint hint) your email address won't be revealed unless you choose to respond. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:28, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I've done it (I managed to get confirmation eventually...!) [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:51, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Europeanunion

2008-04-06T19:12:38Z

Europeanunion: /* Email */ what does it do?

User talk:Europeanunion

2008-04-06T18:01:15Z

Europeanunion: how?

User talk:Europeanunion

2008-04-06T18:00:21Z

Europeanunion: how?

User talk:Europeanunion

2008-04-06T12:48:29Z

Europeanunion: /* Warning */ thanks

Talk:Liberal

2008-04-06T10:46:20Z

Europeanunion: here is the justification for my comments.

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Request ==

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No, Oxford granted Dawkins his professorship in 1996. The link I provided above demonstrates this. The 'tempest' (I would actually call it more a 'storm in a teacup') started in 2007, when a certain person here tried to throw doubt on Dawkins' academic credentials in what can only be described, quite frankly, as a blatent ad hominem attack. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even if we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you certainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is [[Logical_fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

May I make a suggestion? Keep the disputed sentence, but move it over to [[liberal style]]. It fits in very nicely over there.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, it's definitely more an example of liberal style than it is a political position, as all the rest of the items on the list are. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
::Pragmatically, I support such a move also; despite mine and others' misgivings about its legitimacy, at least it is more appropriate there. --[[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 14:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''Pragmatically'' what this encyclopedia needs is less obfuscation, and chipping away by internationalists, of the conservative, American, POV of Conservapedia, to make it read neutral. Moving something ''Europeans'' and liberals don't agree with, to another article, is censorship. If liberal users disagree with the conservative point of view of CP, they should give up trying to change it, and find a liberal/internationalist encyclopedia to edit, IMO. If they did, two-thirds of these needless arguments would be eliminated, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:04, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I think RossC's suggestion is a good one. Not because "calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is not a liberal trait (though no one has yet demonstrated that it is), but because (as a couple of others have said) it isn't a political or quasi-political belief like the other items in the list, and it looks out of place here. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

*Well, I added it at Andy's suggestion, made on his talk page, as the edit note clearly states, so the question as to if it belongs ''here'' is pretty moot, I think. I disagree that Schlafly hasn't demonstrated that fact, 100 times over, on the Dawkins or Obama talk pages. I do agree that it appears only liberals disagree on that. It is an argument certainly older than CP, between conservatives and liberals, and all the more a bone of contention between Europeans and United States conservatives. It boils down to a clear disagreement between ''Internationalists'' (and they are primarily liberal) and those of us who support CP, which was founded as a U.S. Christian/Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, to continue to be true to that. While I wouldn't want to ignore the world as ''Internationalists'' see it, or wish it to be, that outlook is already embraced by Wikipedia, several thousand times larger than CP, so the POV is more than adequately served. So, while wanting to acknowledge what the liberal "world view" is, it cannot, nor should it be, incorporated into CP's articles, other than to point out what those who believe in it think, and why American conservatives think they are wrong.

*Some, mostly from other countries, while they might be Christians, ''certainly are not United States conservatives'', and even they seek to impose their unique, anti (or contrary to)-U.S. point of view on CP, trying, bit by bit, to remove anything they consider "U.S.-centric". They are among those, like the liberals, who seek to fundamentally change the founding precepts of Conservapedia, and turn it towards the so-called "world view". While I don't seek to diminish what they believe (they cannot help it, being used to a "Wikipedian World" and not Americans) their role here, editors or admins alike, it seems to me, is either to get on board with CP's point of view, or at least stop the constant arguing that distracts from more content being made, and discouraging conservative editors from doing so. Since the actual practice of "conservatism" outside the United States, is fundamentally different, that puts CP automatically at odds with Europeans and others who might say they are "conservative" but in actual political practice their philosophy is closer to United States liberals.
--[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing censorship with moving something to a different place; you well know that this suggestion is not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be, rather paranoiacally, confusing the legitimate opinion of a sentence's logicality/legitimacy with some form of opinion, which (again with the personal attacks) stems from the idea that just because some here are liberal, not American, internationalist, means that their objections are part of some anti-American, anti-CP, anti-conservative or anti-whatever viewpoint quest to annoy, obfuscate or slow down progress. The reason that I, and a couple of others, object to that sentence is nothing to do with opinion, just logic, and the suggestion to move it to another article is just about appropriateness. A list about conservative positions would not include anything that isn't a position (like professor-calling), same as a list on liberal positions would not. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::'''''Personal attacks?''''' On whom? Liberals in general? Some particular liberal? I demand an apology! CP is indeed an American ''conservative'' encyclopedia. You somehow seem intent on arguing forever, obstructing, until your personal POV (self-declared as logic) is accepted as the model of rationality. And you somehow mistake sticking to one's principles for paranoia, lol. I see you (not me) have resorted to personal insults, Europeanunion. Called me paranoid, didn't you? That is indeed a bit different than making a generalized (but true) statement about liberals and internationalists. Since you are a liberal, all that you think, all of your logic, is colored through that prism. The article was locked, by an Admin, for a reason, and that reason was removal of material conservatives deem appropriate, and suggested by the Owner. If you don't like it, go to his page and take him to task for daring to be so illogical as to suggest adding it. But remember this isn't a mobocracy. Conservative thought will always prevail here. I hope you enjoy your weekend! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 09:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It is clear that we will never see eye-to-eye over this issue, or the nature of each other's arguments. I express my preference for deleting the sentence, but recognise the impossibility of that in this situation. I express my preference that the sentence be moved to a more appropriate article, and hope that this occurs. But I don't think that there's anything more to add to substantiate my views, or to be achieved by further arguing here, so I will leave the discussion, unless someone asks for my opinion on a development. I will instead continue adding information in my field of experience with less controversial articles which are not personal favourites of sysops. Thanks for your hope TK, I hope everyone has a nice day =) [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 11:23, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::It's unfortunate that we could not come to an agreement on this matter :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:58, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, given the first few posts here, with the item being unliaterially removed without any discussion, ''and Europeanunion calling me a paranoid, and accusing me making personal attacks'', and not apologizing for either statement when asked to; did anyone here really think that was the way to accomodation or agreement? I sense a double standard here, with some people being pretty free at calling posts "trolling" when they don't agree with the POV, and yet allowing others to make personal attacks/name calling, and never saying a word. That is neither Christian, fair or conservative, is it? And this from the same people extolling their "logic" and fairness. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:41, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:I was going to concentrate on other things on CP, but I believe your previous post deserves a reply. I did not call you paranoid, but that you "rather paranoiacally" confused an objection based on legitimacy with an opinion based on where I live et cetera - the word paranoia being defined as "suspicion of others that is not based on fact". The personal attacks were the ''ad hominem'' arguments that you used - the definition of that phrase is "replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument". I do not apologise for stating that, but I am sorry if you feel it is an injustice (I do not). [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:46, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

European Union

2008-04-05T18:16:14Z

Europeanunion: lower case, grammar, dashes, etc

{{Country
|name =''European Union''
|map =European_Union.jpg
|flag =567rugyhj.png
|arms =
|capital =
|capital-raw = [[Brussels]], [[Luxembourg]], [[Strasbourg]]
|government =
|government-raw = Sui generis [[supranationalism]]
|language = 23 official languages
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw = José Manuel Barroso (Commission) Hans-Gert Pöttering (Parliament)
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =4,324,782 km² (1,669,807 sq mi)
|pop =497,198,740 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$16,574 billion (2007 IMF)
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =$33,482 (2007 IMF)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =.eu
}}
The '''European Union (EU)''' is a legal, political and economic union of 27 [[European]] countries. It was formed in 1993 with the ratification of the [[Maastricht Treaty]], though its predecessor, the European Economic Community, was founded in 1957.

As a set of institutions, the EU has more powers over its member states and their citizens than other international bodies; many of its competencies are supranational (above the member states) rather than intergovernmental (between them). Despite having a legal personality and sovereignty in agreed areas, it is not regarded as a federation or state in its own right: rather, it stands somewhere between these two points. Fifteen member states use a common [[currency]], the [[euro]]; five other states formally agree to use it, and four others use it without formal agreement.

==Structure==

===The European Commission===
The role and responsibilities of the European Commission place it at the centre of the EU's decision-making process. Acting as the EU's policy and executive engine, the Commission is composed of 27 Commissioners, one from each state, and is supported by a substantial staff located primarily in [[Brussels]], [[Belgium]]. In matters relating to economic integration ("First or 'Community' Pillar"), only the Commission has the right to propose legislation for approval by the EU Council and European Parliament. As "guardian of the Treaties," the Commission ensures that EU laws are applied and upheld throughout the EU, prosecuting member states and other institutions for failing to follow treaty precepts or otherwise apply Community law. The Commission has full authority to enforce Community competition policy, and its policing of implementation of Community legislation preserves the integrity of the EU single market. The Commission likewise manages and develops the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), implements the budget, and represents the European Community in its areas of competence, notably including international trade negotiations.

The Commission President is appointed by agreement of the EU heads of government and is subject to approval by the European Parliament. Commissioners serve for a renewable five-year term. New Commissioners are identified by member state governments in consultation with the President-designate of the Commission and are normally put in place at the beginning of the term of the Commission President. The entire Commission must be confirmed as a collective whole by the European Parliament before its formal appointment by common accord of EU governments.

===The European Council===
The European Council brings together EU heads of government and the President of the European Commission; foreign ministers of member states also participate. Finance ministers are normally included when the leaders discuss questions related to the euro and the economy. The European Council meets at least twice a year, usually quarterly, at the end of each Presidency, to review major EU projects, set guidelines for policies and provide necessary guidance. The Presidency of the Council rotates every six months among EU member states (January–June; July–December). Its role has become increasingly important with the expansion of EU responsibilities and competencies. The Presidency organises and presides over the meetings of the European Council and EU Council (ministerial) meetings, drafts compromises, and seeks solutions to problems submitted to the European Council.

===Council of Ministers===
The Council of Ministers of the European Union (the "EU Council") is the body in which representatives of the individual member state governments, usually ministers, legislate for the EU, set its political objectives, coordinate national policies and resolve differences among their governments and with other EU bodies. Legally speaking, there is only one Council, but it meets in nine different formations, depending on the matters on its agenda. Foreign ministers usually meet at least once a month in the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC), which deals with major foreign policy issues and plays a coordinating role. Ministers for the Economy and Finance (ECOFIN) and ministers responsible for agriculture also hold monthly meetings. Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) hold regular meetings to coordinate policies within their competence.

The Council holds formal sessions in its Brussels headquarters, except in April, June and October, when all sessions take place in Luxembourg. Most formations of the Council also meet informally (tasking no legally binding decisions) in the country holding the EU Presidency, usually once in the course of the Presidency's six-month term. The most prominent of these informal meetings is the so-called "Gymnich" meeting of foreign ministers, named for a town in Germany where the first such meeting took place.

The Council takes most decisions under the Community Pillar by qualified majority voting (QMV) but endeavours to reach the broadest possible consensus before approving legislation. Unanimity is required for a number of specific areas related to economic integration (e.g. taxation), constitutional matters such as amendments to the treaties, the launching of a new common policy, the accession of a new member state, and matters falling within the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Security and Defence Policy, and aspects of law enforcement and judicial cooperation. The number of votes cast by each member state when the EU Council votes by qualified majority voting was determined by the Nice Treaty and roughly correlates to the size of its population.

===The European Parliament===
The European Parliament is the largest trans-national parliament in the world, and the second-largest overall (behind [[India]]), with an electorate of almost half a billion. Members of the Parliament are directly elected by all EU citizens for five-year terms; elections follow national election procedures, except they have to be a form of proportional representation. Members do not sit in national delegations; rather, they sit in groups according to political affiliation (including Socialists, Christian Democrats/Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, et cetera).

Parliament's powers have gradually grown with the entry into force of the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1993) and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999). Parliament shares decision-making power on an equal footing with the Council in many areas under the Community Pillar to which the "co-decision procedure" applies. The European Parliament is one of the two branches with budgetary authority – the Council is the other. The signature of the EP president brings the overall EU budget into effect.

The European Parliament also plays a role in the process of selecting the President and other members of the Commission. The European Council's nomination of the President is subject to approval by the Parliament. The EP holds U.S.-style public hearings of Commission nominees before taking a formal vote to approve the nomination of the Commission as a body. Parliament has the power to censure the entire Commission, but not to dismiss individual Commissioners.

===The European Court of Justice===
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ensures uniform interpretation and application of both the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the secondary legislation and other law adopted under their authority. To enable it to carry out that task, the Court has wide jurisdiction to hear various types of cases. For example, the Court has the authority to hear and issue binding judgements in lawsuits that seek to annul a law adopted by the EU, to compel an EU institution to act, or to require that a member state comply with EU law. The ECJ may issue clarifications of EU law (in response to a request for a preliminary ruling from any member state court) and hears appeals on legal questions arising out of cases at the Court of First Instance. The ECJ currently has 27 justices and eight advocates-general, who are appointed by common accord of the governments of the member states and who hold office for six-year renewable terms.

==Sovereignty==
The member states of the European Union fall under the jurisdiction of the Union's legislative and judicial institutions (the Court of Justice, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament) in those competences that they have conferred to the Union (the principle of subsidiarity). Similar to Federal Law trumping State Law in United States politics, EU member states are obliged to follow the laws set forth by the European Court of Justice, even if their national laws are contradictory. This system of government pools sovereignty in those agreed areas from the nation, and rests it in the EU institutions. Some political theorists argue that the EU is thus the death of the nation, as by the Treaty of Westphalia, nations are defined by their right of self-sovereignty; however, each member state has a legal right to cede from the EU, which non-sovereign components of states do not.

==Economy==
The institutions of the European Union were originally created to oversee the operation of the several economic communities that later became the Single European Market. Even as the EU's political integration has continued, the area of greatest integration has always been in the economic sphere: goods, capital, and labour move freely between member states (with exceptions for goods which pose a public health risk), businesses in all member states are increasingly subject to common basic rules, and fifteen of the 27 member states use a common currency, the euro. The rest of the states are legally obliged to adopt the euro when their economies meet strict ''Convergence Criteria''. The fifteen euro-area countries share a common monetary policy administered by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany. The EU strives to eliminate internal barriers to the free flow of goods, services, labour, and capital, and to promote the overall convergence of living standards. Internationally, the EU aims to strengthen Europe's trade position and capitalise on the political and economic leverage that a large, unified market brings.

===Growth===
The EU is the world's largest economic area (the U.S. is second) with a 2007 GDP of $16.6 trillion. Growth in many western member states has been slow compared to those in the east; between 2001 and 2003, the overall growth rate dropped from 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent, then recovered in 2004 to 2.4%, fell to 1.8 percent in 2005, then rose to 2.8% in 2006 and 2.4% in 2007. Within the euro area, growth varies as much as 4.5 percentage points between the fastest and slowest-growing economies: in 2005, the economies of Germany, France and Italy, grew by less than two percent. Growth remains strong in the new central- and eastern-European member states with rapidly industrialising economies.

In spring 2000, the EU committed to a ten-year strategic goal of transforming the EU into a more competitive, knowledge-based economy capable of sustaining higher levels of growth. Focusing on labour market reform, macroeconomic and fiscal policy, and promotion of e-commerce and entrepreneurship, the EU's "Lisbon Agenda" was an attempt to stimulate growth while remaining committed to the EU social model. Some suggest that it has so far failed to achieve its goals in large part because national governments (which retain authority over employment policy, immigration, large public sector workforces, entitlement programs and pensions) have not completed the necessary reforms, with unemployment at 6.9 percent in 2007. The European Commission re-launched the Lisbon Agenda in March 2005, promising three percent growth and six million new jobs by 2010. The revamped strategy focuses on developing political consensus within member states to make the changes necessary to complete elimination of barriers in the internal market, reduce the regulatory burden on business, improve labour market flexibility, provide incentives to work and increase investment in human capital.

===Fiscal and Monetary Policy===
Introduced in 1999, the euro is currently the official currency of fifteen of the 27 EU member states. The United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden chose to retain their national currencies, and some of the newer EU members have yet to meet the strict economic conditions required to adopt the euro. Prior to the euro's launch in 1999, national currency exchange rates of countries intending to join the euro were fixed within an Exchange Rate Mechanism. Following the January 2002 introduction of euro notes and coins into general circulation, national currencies were removed from circulation. Each of the euro area countries agreed to abide by a shared fiscal policy rule book known as the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). This agreement generally obliges national governments to limit government budget deficits to 3 percent of GDP and established a target debt-to-GDP ratio of below sixty percent. Although enforcement actions have been forgiving – France and Germany, for example, avoided sanctions despite missing SGP targets – countries violating the SGP are technically subject to sanctions by the European Commission. As of March 2005, national governments have been granted budget leeway to achieve structural reforms and to combat prolonged stagnation, negative growth or other factors, such as the cost of German reunification or state pensions. The revised standards still require deficits to remain close to the targets; they may only temporarily exceed the three percent limit.

The euro area's monetary policy is set by the European Central Bank (ECB), which must devise a monetary policy to accommodate a wide range of domestic policies and economic conditions within the euro area. The Treaties require that the ECB's primary objective be to maintain price stability (i.e., to keep inflation low). Euro area national governments have sometimes criticised the ECB for guarding against inflation at the expense of interest rate flexibility that could enable struggling economies to gain traction. The ECB's consistent overnight interest rate of two percent has been credited with creating favourable conditions for growth in Spain and Ireland, but has been blamed for hindering growth in France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Non-EU countries have also adopted the euro, including Andorra, United Kingdom base areas, Kosovo, Monaco, Montenegro, and the Vatican City. Additionally, several countries have currencies pegged to the euro, including French African states and those in the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

===Trade===
The EU is the world's largest exporter of goods and services. In 2003, the then fifteen EU members exported $987 billion worth of goods to non-EU countries. The EU's exports grew rapidly between 1996 and 2000 but have grown more slowly since. Except for 2002, the EU as a whole has posted a trade deficit every year since 1999; it was $62 billion in 2004. The EU is a major exporter of chemicals, transport equipment, and industrial machinery. The EU has large trade deficits in raw materials and energy, and a small deficit in food and drink.

The U.S. is the EU's main trading partner by a wide margin. U.S. goods and services exports to the EU reached $283 billion in 2004, while U.S. goods and services imports from the EU totalled $388 billion. Asian economies such as Japan and China, however, account for an increasingly important share of EU trade. The EU's two-way merchandise trade with China grew to $223 million in 2004, while merchandise trade with Japan was $149 million. Internal trade between euro area and non-euro area countries was down one percent in the first quarter of 2005, but the EU's external trade was up four percent, particularly with Russia and Norway.

Member states have given almost exclusive authority to the EU to negotiate binding international trade treaties. The European Community (EC) is a full member of the World Trade Organisation and plays an active role in the Doha Development Round to foster international trade in services and agricultural products. Bilaterally, the EC maintains framework agreements to facilitate trade flows with thirty-five countries worldwide, mostly elsewhere in Europe, in North Africa, and in the Middle East.

===Foreign Direct Investment===
The EU is both a major destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) and a major source of FDI. U.S. foreign direct investment in the EU totalled $83.3 billion in 2004; EU FDI into the U.S. totalled $46.6 billion. Following strong year-upon-year growth in the late 1990s, however, inward and outward flows of FDI have contracted since 2001. The EU is a net recipient of FDI from Japan, receiving $81 billion in 2003. Conversely, the EU is a net investor in Canada ($86 billion in outward investment in 2003), and China ($29 billion in outward investment in 2003). Growth of intra-EU FDI has increased rapidly in recent years and has increased much faster than FDI in non-EU countries.

The pattern of foreign investment by European firms reflects deep commercial ties with the United States. U.S. and EU businesses invest heavily and operate profitably on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. affiliates in Europe accounted for 56 percent of the aggregate output of U.S. affiliates worldwide. European firms were the largest foreign investors in 44 U.S. states and the second largest foreign investor in the remaining six. Sales by U.S. affiliates in Europe totalled $1.5 trillion in 2002, more than double those of U.S. affiliates in the Asia/Pacific region. European affiliate sales in the U.S. were $1.2 trillion in 2002, more than three times the value of U.S. imports from Europe.

Intra-firm trade involving foreign affiliates is particularly important to the transatlantic trade and investment relationship. Approximately 58 percent of U.S. imports from the EU in 2004 involved trade between related parties, as did 30 percent of U.S. exports to Europe in 2003. This high level of intra-firm trade has contributed to the persistence of the U.S. trade deficit with Europe even as the dollar has lost value against the euro since 2002.

===Budget===
The EU's budget is composed of member state contributions. Equivalent to roughly one percent of the member states' combined gross national income (GNI), it was $123 billion in 2005. The UK receives a rebate for some of its contribution, as the CAP benefits the UK less than other states. In June 2005, the EU failed to agree on a budget plan for 2007 through 2013, due in part to a disagreement between the UK and France over the persistence of the UK budget rebate and the funding of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Costs attributable to the CAP constitute the EU's largest annual budget item, benefiting farmers across the EU, especially in France. Payments to net-recipient member states, designed to reduce economic and social disparities among EU countries and regions, are another budget item which has become more contentious with the accession of ten new states poorer than the EU average.

==Criticism==
A significant number of Europeans on the political right of centre are opposed to the EU on the grounds that it undermines national sovereignty and identity. Such people are known in British English as "eurosceptics", and they include such people as the former British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] (although, while in power, she committed Britain to the 1986 [[Single European Act]], a major integrationist measure) and the members of the [[UK Independence Party]]. They also, however, include less well-respected politicians belonging to far right or [[nationalism|nationalist]] parties, such as France's [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]. There are also extreme left-wing opponents of the European Union, such as ''Die Linke'' in Germany, who regard it as constituting an anti-progressive "Fortress Europe", and claim that EU membership impedes countries from following socialist policies.{{fact}}

==History==
Following World War II, traditional European rivals sought to solidify peace by bringing their nations together under a common institutional structure. Influenced by his compatriot Jean Monnet, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman officially tabled a plan on May 9, 1950 to pool French and German coal and steel production under an organisation that would be open to other European countries. German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer supported this proposal, and six founding countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – took an early step toward European integration by establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) the following year.

After failing to establish a European Defence Community in the 1950s, the six countries then decided to set up a common market. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, they created the European Economic Community (EEC), with an objective of liberating the movement of goods, capital, workers and services. (The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) was also established at this time.) The Treaty of Rome established the basic institutions and decision-making mechanisms still in place in today's European Union. As of July 1, 1968, the EEC abolished customs duties between member states on manufactured goods. New policies, including a common agricultural policy (CAP) and a common trade policy, were in place by the end of the 1960s.

The success of the European integration project during a period of steady economic growth in the 1960s set the stage for a first enlargement – the accession of the UK, Ireland and Denmark – in 1973. Further "deepening" of European integration followed: the Community acquired executive authority in social, regional, and environment policies. The benefits of economic convergence became more evident in the context of the 1970s energy crisis and financial turmoil, which led to the launch of the European Monetary System in 1979. In the same year, the first direct elections to the European Parliament (EP) took place. Previously, delegates from national parliaments had represented their country's legislative bodies at the EP in Strasbourg, France.

The Community further expanded southward with the accession of Greece (1981, the second enlargement), followed by Spain and Portugal (1986, the third enlargement). These accessions led the EEC to adopt "structural programs" in order to reduce economic and social disparities among its regions.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Community began to assert itself on the international scene with the conclusion of agreements with southern Mediterranean countries. Starting in 1963, the EEC signed four successive Lome Conventions, which guaranteed trading advantages and development aid for member states' former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP).

World recession and internal disputes over member states' financial burdens gave way, from 1985 onward, to renewed efforts for economic integration, enshrined in the 1985 "Single European Act" (SEA) and marked by the 1992 "Single Market Project." The SEA set January 1, 1993 as the date by which an internal single market was to be established and, by extending the practice of majority voting rather than unanimity in the EU Council, gave Community institutions the means of adopting the 300 Community-wide Directives required to abolish the remaining barriers and obstacles to intra-Community trade. In 1995, the Community entered into the "Barcelona" partnership with twelve southern Mediterranean countries. The partnership, reinforced by agreements on social, cultural, and human cooperation, was intended to lead to a free-trade area.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall and German unification prompted member states to negotiate the 1992 Treaty on European Union (the "Maastricht Treaty"). In addition to establishing the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty set an ambitious program of further integration: establishment of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by 1999 (part of the "First or 'Community' Pillar"), setting up of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) ("Second Pillar"); and cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) ("Third Pillar"). Shortly thereafter, in 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU – the fourth enlargement.

Signed in 1997 and entering into force on May 1, 1999, the Amsterdam Treaty partially streamlined the EU institutional structure. Its most significant effects were: (1) to transfer aspects of Justice and Home Affairs policy to the Community Pillar, enabling the Commission to propose decisions to be taken by the EU Council by qualified majority voting instead of by consensus, and (2) to establish a High Representative for the CFSP (who also serves as Secretary-General of the Council Secretariat). Ten countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus began accession procedures in 1997, followed by Malta. The prospect of eastward enlargement raised significant resource concerns and prompted the adoption in March 1999 of the "Agenda 2000" package, which covered amendments to the CAP and EU structural policies, as well as a budgetary framework through 2006.

In May 1998, EU heads of government officially designated eleven member states eligible to adopt a single currency. Greece initially did not qualify, and Sweden, the UK and Denmark "opted out." On January 1, 1999, the euro became the official currency of the EU, and the European Central Bank (ECB) put euro notes and coins into circulation on January 1, 2002. Today, fifteen countries use the euro: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

Streamlining the size and procedures of EU institutions to make the expanded EU more efficient was also an aim of the 2003 Treaty of Nice. A year later, in May 2004, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU, and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania acceded, bringing total membership to 27. Candidate countries currently include Turkey, FYR Macedonia and Croatia, and potential candidates include the rest of the Western Balkan states.

In October 2004, member states signed an EU Constitutional Treaty in Rome, intending that it take effect on November 1, 2006 by replacing all previous treaties. French and Dutch voters rejected the treaty through referendums in 2005, thereby suspending the ratification process. In 2007, a modified Treaty of Lisbon was agreed upon, which retains most of the reforms of the Constitution, but amends rather than replaces previous treaties. If ratified by all member states, it is expected to enter into force in 2009, ready for the elections of the Parliament in June, which will decide the Presidents of the Parliament, Commission and Council.

==Candidates for membership==
There are three official candidates being considered for membership, [[Turkey]], [[Croatia]] and [[The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]]. The western Balkan states of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania are officially ''potential candidates''. A country that is expected to accede is required to make some economic, social and governmental changes to bring it in line with other member states.

There is some conflict between current EU member states over possible candidates for membership. For example, The United Kingdom is in favour of adding Turkey to the EU, while France is strongly against Turkey's possible membership.

Gateway to the European Union (EU official website) <ref>http://europa.eu/</ref>

==Member states==
*[[Austria]]
*[[Belgium]]
*[[Bulgaria]]
*[[Cyprus]]
*[[Czech Republic]]
*[[Denmark]]
*[[Estonia]]
*[[Finland]]
*[[France]]
*[[Germany]]
*[[Greece]]
*[[Hungary]]
*[[Ireland]]
*[[Italy]]
*[[Latvia]]
*[[Lithuania]]
*[[Luxembourg]]
*[[Malta]]
*[[Netherlands]]
*[[Poland]]
*[[Portugal]]
*[[Romania]]
*[[Slovakia]]
*[[Slovenia]]
*[[Spain]]
*[[Sweden]]
*[[United Kingdom]]

==References==
<References/>

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/54126.htm]}}

[[Category:Europe]]
[[category:politics]]

European Union

2008-04-05T18:02:02Z

Europeanunion: /* Growth */ cut excessive wording to make it more succinct

{{Country
|name =''European Union''
|map =European_Union.jpg
|flag =567rugyhj.png
|arms =
|capital =
|capital-raw = [[Brussels]], [[Luxembourg]], [[Strasbourg]]
|government =
|government-raw = Sui generis [[supranationalism]]
|language = 23 official languages
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw = José Manuel Barroso (Commission) Hans-Gert Pöttering (Parliament)
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =4,324,782 km² (1,669,807 sq mi)
|pop =497,198,740 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$16,574 billion (2007 IMF)
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =$33,482 (2007 IMF)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =.eu
}}
The '''European Union (EU)''' is a legal, political and economic union of 27 [[European]] countries. It was formed in 1993 with the ratification of the [[Maastricht Treaty]], though its predecessor, the European Economic Community, was founded in 1957.

As a set of institutions, the EU has more powers over its member states and their citizens than other international bodies; many of its competencies are supranational (above the member states) rather than intergovernmental (between them). Despite having a legal personality and sovereignty in agreed areas, it is not regarded as a federation or state in its own right: rather, it stands somewhere between these two points. Fifteen member states use a common [[currency]], the [[euro]]; five other states formally agree to use it, and four others use it without formal agreement.

==Structure==

===The European Commission===
The role and responsibilities of the European Commission place it at the center of the EU's decision-making process. Acting as the EU's policy and executive engine, the Commission is composed of 27 Commissioners, one from each state, and is supported by a substantial staff located primarily in [[Brussels]], [[Belgium]]. In matters relating to economic integration ("First or 'Community' Pillar"), only the Commission has the right to propose legislation for approval by the EU Council and European Parliament. As "guardian of the Treaties," the Commission ensures that EU laws are applied and upheld throughout the EU, prosecuting Member States and other institutions for failing to follow treaty precepts or otherwise apply Community law. The Commission has full authority to enforce Community competition policy, and its policing of implementation of Community legislation preserves the integrity of the EU single market. The Commission likewise manages and develops the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), implements the budget, and represents the European Community in its areas of competence, notably including international trade negotiations.

The Commission President is appointed by agreement of the EU heads of government and is subject to approval by the European Parliament. Commissioners serve for a renewable five-year term. New Commissioners are identified by Member State governments in consultation with the President-designate of the Commission and are normally put in place at the beginning of the term of the Commission President. The entire Commission must be confirmed as a collective whole by the European Parliament before its formal appointment by common accord of EU governments.

===The European Council===
The European Council brings together EU heads of government and the President of the European Commission; foreign ministers of Member States also participate. Finance ministers are normally included when the leaders discuss questions related to the euro and the economy. The European Council meets at least twice a year, usually quarterly, at the end of each Presidency, to review major EU projects, set guidelines for policies and provide necessary guidance. The Presidency of the Council rotates every six months among EU Member States (January-June; July- December). Its role has become increasingly important with the expansion of EU responsibilities and competencies. The Presidency organizes and presides over the meetings of the European Council and EU Council (ministerial) meetings, drafts compromises, and seeks solutions to problems submitted to the European Council.

===Council of Ministers===
The Council of Ministers of the European Union (the "EU Council") is the body in which representatives of the individual Member State governments, usually ministers, legislate for the EU, set its political objectives, coordinate national policies and resolve differences among their governments and with other EU bodies. Legally speaking, there is only one Council, but it meets in nine different formations, depending on the matters on its agenda. Foreign ministers usually meet at least once a month in the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC), which deals with major foreign policy issues and plays a coordinating role. Ministers for the Economy and Finance (ECOFIN) and ministers responsible for agriculture also hold monthly meetings. Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) hold regular meetings to coordinate policies within their competence.

The Council holds formal sessions in its Brussels headquarters, except in April, June and October, when all sessions take place in Luxembourg. Most formations of the Council also meet informally (tasking no legally binding decisions) in the country holding the EU Presidency, usually once in the course of the Presidency's six-month term. The most prominent of these informal meetings is the so-called "Gymnich" meeting of foreign ministers, named for a town in Germany where the first such meeting took place.

The Council takes most decisions under the Community Pillar by qualified majority voting (QMV) but endeavors to reach the broadest possible consensus before approving legislation. Unanimity is required for a number of specific areas related to economic integration (e.g. taxation), constitutional matters such as amendments to the treaties, the launching of a new common policy, the accession of a new Member State, and matters falling within the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Security and Defense Policy, and aspects of law enforcement and judicial cooperation. The number of votes cast by each Member State when the EU Council votes by qualified majority voting was determined by the Nice Treaty and roughly correlates to the size of its population.

===The European Parliament===
The European Parliament is the largest trans-national parliament in the world, and the second-largest overall (behind [[India]]), with an electorate of almost half a billion. Members of the Parliament are directly elected by all EU citizens for five-year terms; elections follow national election procedures, except they have to be a form of proportional representation. Members do not sit in national delegations; rather, they sit in groups according to political affiliation (including Socialists, Christian-Democrats/Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, etc.).

Parliament's powers have gradually grown with the entry into force of the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1993) and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999). Parliament shares decision-making power on an equal footing with the Council in many areas under the Community Pillar to which the "co-decision procedure" applies. The European Parliament is one of the two branches with budgetary authority – the Council is the other. The signature of the EP president brings the overall EU budget into effect.

The European Parliament also plays a role in the process of selecting the President and other members of the Commission. The European Council's nomination of the President is subject to approval by the Parliament. The EP holds U.S.-style public hearings of Commission nominees before taking a formal vote to approve the nomination of the Commission as a body. Parliament has the power to censure the entire Commission, but not to dismiss individual Commissioners.

===The European Court of Justice===
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ensures uniform interpretation and application of both the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the secondary legislation and other law adopted under their authority. To enable it to carry out that task, the Court has wide jurisdiction to hear various types of cases. For example, the Court has the authority to hear and issue binding judgments in lawsuits that seek to annul a law adopted by the EU, to compel an EU institution to act, or to require that a Member State comply with EU law. The ECJ may issue clarifications of EU law (in response to a request for a preliminary ruling from any Member State court) and hears appeals on legal questions arising out of cases at the Court of First Instance. The ECJ currently has 27 justices and eight advocates-general, who are appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States and who hold office for six-year renewable terms.

==Sovereignty==
The member states of the European Union fall under the jurisdiction of the Union's legislative and judicial institutions (the Court of Justice, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament) in those competences that they have conferred to the Union (the principle of subsidiarity). Similar to Federal Law trumping State Law in United States politics, EU member states are obliged to follow the laws set forth by the European Court of Justice, even if their national laws are contradictory. This system of government pools sovereignty in those agreed areas from the nation, and rests it in the EU institutions. Some political theorists argue that the EU is thus the death of the nation, as by the Treaty of Westphalia, nations are defined by their right of self-sovereignty; however, each member state has a legal right to cede from the EU, which non-sovereign components of states do not.

==Economy==
The institutions of the European Union were originally created to oversee the operation of the several economic communities that later became the Single European Market. Even as the EU's political integration has continued, the area of greatest integration has always been in the economic sphere: goods, capital, and labor move freely between Member States (with exceptions for goods which pose a public health risk), businesses in all Member States are increasingly subject to common basic rules, and fifteen of the 27 Member States use a common currency, the euro. The rest of the states are legally obliged to adopt the euro when their economies meet strict ''Convergence Criteria''. The fifteen Euro-area countries share a common monetary policy administered by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany. The EU strives to eliminate internal barriers to the free flow of goods, services, labor, and capital, and to promote the overall convergence of living standards. Internationally, the EU aims to strengthen Europe's trade position and capitalize on the political and economic leverage that a large, unified market brings.

===Growth===
The EU is the world's largest economic area (the U.S. is second) with a 2007 GDP of $16.6 trillion. Growth in many western member states has been slow compared to those in the east; between 2001 and 2003, the overall growth rate dropped from 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent, then recovered in 2004 to 2.4%, fell to 1.8 percent in 2005, then rose to 2.8% in 2006 and 2.4% in 2007. Within the euro area, growth varies as much as 4.5 percentage points between the fastest and slowest-growing economies: in 2005, the economies of Germany, France and Italy, grew by less than two percent. Growth remains strong in the new central- and eastern-European member states with rapidly industrializing economies.

In spring 2000, the EU committed to a ten-year strategic goal of transforming the EU into a more competitive, knowledge-based economy capable of sustaining higher levels of growth. Focusing on labor market reform, macroeconomic and fiscal policy, and promotion of e-commerce and entrepreneurship, the EU's "Lisbon Agenda" was an attempt to stimulate growth while remaining committed to the EU social model. Some suggest that it has so far failed to achieve its goals in large part because national governments (which retain authority over employment policy, immigration, large public sector workforces, entitlement programs and pensions) have not completed the necessary reforms, with unemployment at 6.9 percent in 2007. The European Commission re-launched the Lisbon Agenda in March 2005, promising three percent growth and six million new jobs by 2010. The revamped strategy focuses on developing political consensus within member states to make the changes necessary to complete elimination of barriers in the internal market, reduce the regulatory burden on business, improve labor market flexibility, provide incentives to work and increase investment in human capital.

===Fiscal and Monetary Policy===
Introduced in 1999, the euro is currently the official currency of fifteen of the 27 EU Member States. United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden chose to retain their national currencies, and some of the newer EU members have yet to meet the strict economic conditions required to adopt the euro. Prior to the euro's launch in 1999, national currency exchange rates of countries intending to join the euro were fixed within an Exchange Rate Mechanism. Following the January 2002 introduction of euro notes and coins into general circulation, national currencies were removed from circulation. Each of the euro area countries agreed to abide by a shared fiscal policy rule book known as the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). This agreement generally obliges national governments to limit government budget deficits to 3 percent of GDP and established a target debt-to-GDP ratio of below sixty percent. Although enforcement actions have been forgiving – France and Germany, for example, avoided sanctions despite missing SGP targets – countries violating the SGP are technically subject to sanctions by the European Commission. As of March 2005, national governments have been granted budget leeway to achieve structural reforms and to combat prolonged stagnation, negative growth or other factors, such as the cost of German reunification or state pensions. The revised standards still require deficits to remain close to the targets; they may only temporarily exceed the three percent limit.

The euro area's monetary policy is set by the European Central Bank (ECB), which must devise a monetary policy to accommodate a wide range of domestic policies and economic conditions within the euro area. The Treaties require that the ECB's primary objective be to maintain price stability (i.e., to keep inflation low). Euro area national governments have sometimes criticized the ECB for guarding against inflation at the expense of interest rate flexibility that could enable struggling economies to gain traction. The ECB's consistent overnight interest rate of two percent has been credited with creating favorable conditions for growth in Spain and Ireland, but has been blamed for hindering growth in France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Non-EU countries have also adopted the euro, including Andorra, United Kingdom base areas, Kosovo, Monaco, Montenegro, and the Vatican City. Additionally, several countries have currencies pegged to the euro, including French African states and those in the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

===Trade===
The EU is the world's largest exporter of goods and services. In 2003, the then-fifteen EU members exported $987 billion worth of goods to non-EU countries. The EU's exports grew rapidly between 1996 and 2000 but have grown more slowly since. Except for 2002, the EU as a whole has posted a trade deficit every year since 1999; it was $62 billion in 2004. The EU is a major exporter of chemicals, transport equipment, and industrial machinery. The EU has large trade deficits in raw materials and energy, and a small deficit in food and drink.

The U.S. is the EU's main trading partner by a wide margin. U.S. goods and services exports to the EU reached $283 billion in 2004, while U.S. goods and services imports from the EU totaled $388 billion. Asian economies such as Japan and China, however, account for an increasingly important share of EU trade. The EU's two-way merchandise trade with China grew to $223 million in 2004, while merchandise trade with Japan was $149 million. Internal trade between Euro area and non-Euro area countries was down one percent in the first quarter of 2005, but the EU's external trade was up four percent, particularly with Russia and Norway.

Member States have given almost exclusive authority to the EU to negotiate trade treaties that bind the Member States. The European Community (EC) is a full member of the World Trade Organization and plays an active role in the Doha Development Round to foster international trade in services and agricultural products. Bilaterally, the EC maintains framework agreements to facilitate trade flows with thirty-five countries worldwide, mostly elsewhere in Europe, in North Africa, and in the Middle East.

===Foreign Direct Investment===
The EU is both a major destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) and a major source of FDI. U.S. foreign direct investment in the EU totaled $83.3 billion in 2004; EU FDI into the U.S. totaled $46.6 billion. Following strong year-upon-year growth in the late 1990s, however, inward and outward flows of FDI have contracted since 2001. The EU is a net recipient of FDI from Japan, receiving $81 billion in 2003. Conversely, the EU is a net investor in Canada ($86 billion in outward investment in 2003), and China ($29 billion in outward investment in 2003). Growth of intra-EU FDI has increased rapidly in recent years and has increased much faster than FDI in non-EU countries.

The pattern of foreign investment by European firms reflects deep commercial ties with the United States. U.S. and EU businesses invest heavily and operate profitably on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. affiliates in Europe accounted for 56 percent of the aggregate output of U.S. affiliates worldwide. European firms were the largest foreign investors in 44 U.S. states and the second largest foreign investor in the remaining six. Sales by U.S. affiliates in Europe totaled $1.5 trillion in 2002, more than double those of U.S. affiliates in the Asia/Pacific region. European affiliate sales in the U.S. were $1.2 trillion in 2002, more than three times the value of U.S. imports from Europe.

Intra-firm trade involving foreign affiliates is particularly important to the transatlantic trade and investment relationship. Approximately 58 percent of U.S. imports from the EU in 2004 involved trade between related parties, as did 30 percent of U.S. exports to Europe in 2003. This high level of intra-firm trade has contributed to the persistence of the U.S. trade deficit with Europe even as the dollar has lost value against the Euro since 2002.

===Budget===
The EU's budget is essentially made up of Member State contributions. Equivalent to roughly one percent of the Member States' combined gross national income (GNI), it was $123 billion in 2005. The UK receives a rebate for some of its contribution, as the CAP benefits the UK less than other states. In June 2005, the EU failed to agree on a budget plan for 2007 through 2013, due in part to a disagreement between the UK and France over the persistence of the UK budget rebate and the funding of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Costs attributable to the CAP constitute the EU's largest annual budget item, benefiting farmers across the EU, especially in France. Payments to net-recipient Member States, designed to reduce economic and social disparities among EU countries and regions, are another budget item which has become more contentious with the accession of ten new states poorer than the EU average.

==Criticism==
A significant number of Europeans on the political right of center are opposed to the EU on the grounds that it undermines national sovereignty and identity. Such people are known in British English as "Eurosceptics", and they include such people as the former British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] (although, while in power, she committed Britain to the 1986 [[Single European Act]], a major integrationist measure) and the members of the [[UK Independence Party]]. They also, however, include less well-respected politicians belonging to far right or [[nationalism|nationalist]] parties, such as France's [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]. There are also extreme left-wing opponents of the European Union, such as ''Die Linke'' in Germany, who regard it as constituting an anti-progressive "Fortress Europe", and claim that EU membership impedes countries from following socialist policies.{{fact}}

==History==
Following World War II, traditional European rivals sought to solidify peace by bringing their nations together under a common institutional structure. Influenced by his compatriot Jean Monnet, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman officially tabled a plan on May 9, 1950 to pool French and German coal and steel production under an organization that would be open to other European countries. German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer supported this proposal, and six founding countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – took an early step toward European integration by establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) the following year.

After failing to establish a European Defense Community in the 1950s, the six countries then decided to set up a common market. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, they created the European Economic Community (EEC), with an objective of liberating the movement of goods, capital, workers and services. (The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) was also established at this time.) The Treaty of Rome established the basic institutions and decision-making mechanisms still in place in today's European Union. As of July 1, 1968, the EEC abolished customs duties between Member States on manufactured goods. New policies, including a common agricultural policy (CAP) and a common trade policy, were in place by the end of the 1960s.

The success of the European integration project during a period of steady economic growth in the 1960s set the stage for a first enlargement – the accession of the UK, Ireland and Denmark – in 1973. Further "deepening" of European integration followed: the Community acquired executive authority in social, regional, and environment policies. The benefits of economic convergence became more evident in the context of the 1970s energy crisis and financial turmoil, which led to the launch of the European Monetary System in 1979. In the same year, the first direct elections to the European Parliament (EP) took place. Previously, delegates from national parliaments had represented their country's legislative bodies at the EP in Strasbourg, France.

The Community further expanded southward with the accession of Greece (1981, the second enlargement), followed by Spain and Portugal (1986, the third enlargement). These accessions led the EEC to adopt "structural programs" in order to reduce economic and social disparities among its regions.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Community began to assert itself on the international scene with the conclusion of agreements with southern Mediterranean countries. Starting in 1963, the EEC signed four successive Lome Conventions, which guaranteed trading advantages and development aid for Member States' former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP).

World recession and internal disputes over Member States' financial burdens gave way, from 1985 onward, to renewed efforts for economic integration, enshrined in the 1985 "Single European Act" (SEA) and marked by the 1992 "Single Market Project." The SEA set January 1, 1993 as the date by which an internal single market was to be established and, by extending the practice of majority voting rather than unanimity in the EU Council, gave Community institutions the means of adopting the 300 Community-wide Directives required to abolish the remaining barriers and obstacles to intra-Community trade. In 1995, the Community entered into the "Barcelona" partnership with twelve southern Mediterranean countries. The partnership, reinforced by agreements on social, cultural, and human cooperation, was intended to lead to a free-trade area.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall and German unification prompted Member States to negotiate the 1992 Treaty on European Union (the "Maastricht Treaty"). In addition to establishing the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty set an ambitious program of further integration: establishment of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by 1999 (part of the "First or 'Community' Pillar"), setting up of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) ("Second Pillar"); and cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) ("Third Pillar"). Shortly thereafter, in 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU – the fourth enlargement.

Signed in 1997 and entering into force on May 1, 1999, the Amsterdam Treaty partially streamlined the EU institutional structure. Its most significant effects were: (1) to transfer aspects of Justice and Home Affairs policy to the Community Pillar, enabling the Commission to propose decisions to be taken by the EU Council by qualified majority voting instead of by consensus, and (2) to establish a High Representative for the CFSP (who also serves as Secretary-General of the Council Secretariat). Ten countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus began accession procedures in 1997, followed by Malta. The prospect of eastward enlargement raised significant resource concerns and prompted the adoption in March 1999 of the "Agenda 2000" package, which covered amendments to the CAP and EU structural policies, as well as a budgetary framework through 2006.

In May 1998, EU heads of government officially designated eleven Member States eligible to adopt a single currency. Greece initially did not qualify, and Sweden, the UK and Denmark "opted out." On January 1, 1999, the euro became the official currency of the EU, and the European Central Bank (ECB) put euro notes and coins into circulation on January 1, 2002. Today, fifteen countries use the euro: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

Streamlining the size and procedures of EU institutions to make the expanded EU more efficient was also an aim of the 2003 Treaty of Nice. A year later, in May 2004, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU, and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania acceded, bringing total membership to 27. Candidate countries currently include Turkey, FYR Macedonia and Croatia, and potential candidates include the rest of the Western Balkan states.

In October 2004, Member States signed an EU Constitutional Treaty in Rome, intending that it take effect on November 1, 2006 by replacing all previous treaties. French and Dutch voters rejected the treaty through referendums in 2005, thereby suspending the ratification process. In 2007, a modified Treaty of Lisbon was agreed upon, which retains most of the reforms of the Constitution, but amends rather than replaces previous treaties. If ratified by all member states, it is expected to enter into force in 2009, ready for the elections of the Parliament in June, which will decide the Presidents of the Parliament, Commission and Council.

==Candidates for membership==
There are three official candidates being considered for membership, [[Turkey]], [[Croatia]] and [[The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]]. The western Balkan states of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania are officially ''potential candidates''. A country that is expected to accede is required to make some economic, social and governmental changes to bring it in line with other member states.

There is some conflict between current EU member states over possible candidates for membership. For example, The United Kingdom is in favor of adding Turkey to the EU, while France is strongly against Turkey's possible membership.

Gateway to the European Union (EU official website) <ref>http://europa.eu/</ref>

==Member states==
*[[Austria]]
*[[Belgium]]
*[[Bulgaria]]
*[[Cyprus]]
*[[Czech Republic]]
*[[Denmark]]
*[[Estonia]]
*[[Finland]]
*[[France]]
*[[Germany]]
*[[Greece]]
*[[Hungary]]
*[[Ireland]]
*[[Italy]]
*[[Latvia]]
*[[Lithuania]]
*[[Luxembourg]]
*[[Malta]]
*[[Netherlands]]
*[[Poland]]
*[[Portugal]]
*[[Romania]]
*[[Slovakia]]
*[[Slovenia]]
*[[Spain]]
*[[Sweden]]
*[[United Kingdom]]

==References==
<References/>

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/54126.htm]}}

[[Category:Europe]]
[[category:politics]]

European Union

2008-04-05T17:56:04Z

Europeanunion: /* Member nations */ they're always called member states

{{Country
|name =''European Union''
|map =European_Union.jpg
|flag =567rugyhj.png
|arms =
|capital =
|capital-raw = [[Brussels]], [[Luxembourg]], [[Strasbourg]]
|government =
|government-raw = Sui generis [[supranationalism]]
|language = 23 official languages
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw = José Manuel Barroso (Commission) Hans-Gert Pöttering (Parliament)
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =4,324,782 km² (1,669,807 sq mi)
|pop =497,198,740 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$16,574 billion (2007 IMF)
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =$33,482 (2007 IMF)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =.eu
}}
The '''European Union (EU)''' is a legal, political and economic union of 27 [[European]] countries. It was formed in 1993 with the ratification of the [[Maastricht Treaty]], though its predecessor, the European Economic Community, was founded in 1957.

As a set of institutions, the EU has more powers over its member states and their citizens than other international bodies; many of its competencies are supranational (above the member states) rather than intergovernmental (between them). Despite having a legal personality and sovereignty in agreed areas, it is not regarded as a federation or state in its own right: rather, it stands somewhere between these two points. Fifteen member states use a common [[currency]], the [[euro]]; five other states formally agree to use it, and four others use it without formal agreement.

==Structure==

===The European Commission===
The role and responsibilities of the European Commission place it at the center of the EU's decision-making process. Acting as the EU's policy and executive engine, the Commission is composed of 27 Commissioners, one from each state, and is supported by a substantial staff located primarily in [[Brussels]], [[Belgium]]. In matters relating to economic integration ("First or 'Community' Pillar"), only the Commission has the right to propose legislation for approval by the EU Council and European Parliament. As "guardian of the Treaties," the Commission ensures that EU laws are applied and upheld throughout the EU, prosecuting Member States and other institutions for failing to follow treaty precepts or otherwise apply Community law. The Commission has full authority to enforce Community competition policy, and its policing of implementation of Community legislation preserves the integrity of the EU single market. The Commission likewise manages and develops the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), implements the budget, and represents the European Community in its areas of competence, notably including international trade negotiations.

The Commission President is appointed by agreement of the EU heads of government and is subject to approval by the European Parliament. Commissioners serve for a renewable five-year term. New Commissioners are identified by Member State governments in consultation with the President-designate of the Commission and are normally put in place at the beginning of the term of the Commission President. The entire Commission must be confirmed as a collective whole by the European Parliament before its formal appointment by common accord of EU governments.

===The European Council===
The European Council brings together EU heads of government and the President of the European Commission; foreign ministers of Member States also participate. Finance ministers are normally included when the leaders discuss questions related to the euro and the economy. The European Council meets at least twice a year, usually quarterly, at the end of each Presidency, to review major EU projects, set guidelines for policies and provide necessary guidance. The Presidency of the Council rotates every six months among EU Member States (January-June; July- December). Its role has become increasingly important with the expansion of EU responsibilities and competencies. The Presidency organizes and presides over the meetings of the European Council and EU Council (ministerial) meetings, drafts compromises, and seeks solutions to problems submitted to the European Council.

===Council of Ministers===
The Council of Ministers of the European Union (the "EU Council") is the body in which representatives of the individual Member State governments, usually ministers, legislate for the EU, set its political objectives, coordinate national policies and resolve differences among their governments and with other EU bodies. Legally speaking, there is only one Council, but it meets in nine different formations, depending on the matters on its agenda. Foreign ministers usually meet at least once a month in the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC), which deals with major foreign policy issues and plays a coordinating role. Ministers for the Economy and Finance (ECOFIN) and ministers responsible for agriculture also hold monthly meetings. Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) hold regular meetings to coordinate policies within their competence.

The Council holds formal sessions in its Brussels headquarters, except in April, June and October, when all sessions take place in Luxembourg. Most formations of the Council also meet informally (tasking no legally binding decisions) in the country holding the EU Presidency, usually once in the course of the Presidency's six-month term. The most prominent of these informal meetings is the so-called "Gymnich" meeting of foreign ministers, named for a town in Germany where the first such meeting took place.

The Council takes most decisions under the Community Pillar by qualified majority voting (QMV) but endeavors to reach the broadest possible consensus before approving legislation. Unanimity is required for a number of specific areas related to economic integration (e.g. taxation), constitutional matters such as amendments to the treaties, the launching of a new common policy, the accession of a new Member State, and matters falling within the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Security and Defense Policy, and aspects of law enforcement and judicial cooperation. The number of votes cast by each Member State when the EU Council votes by qualified majority voting was determined by the Nice Treaty and roughly correlates to the size of its population.

===The European Parliament===
The European Parliament is the largest trans-national parliament in the world, and the second-largest overall (behind [[India]]), with an electorate of almost half a billion. Members of the Parliament are directly elected by all EU citizens for five-year terms; elections follow national election procedures, except they have to be a form of proportional representation. Members do not sit in national delegations; rather, they sit in groups according to political affiliation (including Socialists, Christian-Democrats/Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, etc.).

Parliament's powers have gradually grown with the entry into force of the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1993) and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999). Parliament shares decision-making power on an equal footing with the Council in many areas under the Community Pillar to which the "co-decision procedure" applies. The European Parliament is one of the two branches with budgetary authority – the Council is the other. The signature of the EP president brings the overall EU budget into effect.

The European Parliament also plays a role in the process of selecting the President and other members of the Commission. The European Council's nomination of the President is subject to approval by the Parliament. The EP holds U.S.-style public hearings of Commission nominees before taking a formal vote to approve the nomination of the Commission as a body. Parliament has the power to censure the entire Commission, but not to dismiss individual Commissioners.

===The European Court of Justice===
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ensures uniform interpretation and application of both the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the secondary legislation and other law adopted under their authority. To enable it to carry out that task, the Court has wide jurisdiction to hear various types of cases. For example, the Court has the authority to hear and issue binding judgments in lawsuits that seek to annul a law adopted by the EU, to compel an EU institution to act, or to require that a Member State comply with EU law. The ECJ may issue clarifications of EU law (in response to a request for a preliminary ruling from any Member State court) and hears appeals on legal questions arising out of cases at the Court of First Instance. The ECJ currently has 27 justices and eight advocates-general, who are appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States and who hold office for six-year renewable terms.

==Sovereignty==
The member states of the European Union fall under the jurisdiction of the Union's legislative and judicial institutions (the Court of Justice, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament) in those competences that they have conferred to the Union (the principle of subsidiarity). Similar to Federal Law trumping State Law in United States politics, EU member states are obliged to follow the laws set forth by the European Court of Justice, even if their national laws are contradictory. This system of government pools sovereignty in those agreed areas from the nation, and rests it in the EU institutions. Some political theorists argue that the EU is thus the death of the nation, as by the Treaty of Westphalia, nations are defined by their right of self-sovereignty; however, each member state has a legal right to cede from the EU, which non-sovereign components of states do not.

==Economy==
The institutions of the European Union were originally created to oversee the operation of the several economic communities that later became the Single European Market. Even as the EU's political integration has continued, the area of greatest integration has always been in the economic sphere: goods, capital, and labor move freely between Member States (with exceptions for goods which pose a public health risk), businesses in all Member States are increasingly subject to common basic rules, and fifteen of the 27 Member States use a common currency, the euro. The rest of the states are legally obliged to adopt the euro when their economies meet strict ''Convergence Criteria''. The fifteen Euro-area countries share a common monetary policy administered by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany. The EU strives to eliminate internal barriers to the free flow of goods, services, labor, and capital, and to promote the overall convergence of living standards. Internationally, the EU aims to strengthen Europe's trade position and capitalize on the political and economic leverage that a large, unified market brings.

===Growth===
The EU is the world's largest economic area (the U.S. is second) with a 2007 GDP of $16.6 trillion; however, growth in many western Member States in the recent past has been slow compared to those in the east. Between 2001 and 2003, the overall growth rate dropped from 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent. The EU economy staged a,short-lived recovery in 2004 of 2.4%, but fell to 1.8 percent in 2005, then rose to 2.8% in 2006 and 2.4% in 2007. Within the euro area, growth varies as much as 4.5 percentage points between the fastest and slowest-growing economies. In 2005, many of the EU's largest economies, including Germany, France and Italy, grew by less than two percent. Outside the euro area, growth remains strong, particularly in the Central and Eastern European countries that joined the EU in May 2004.

In spring 2000, the EU committed to a ten-year strategic goal of transforming the EU into a more competitive, knowledge-based economy capable of sustaining higher levels of growth. Focusing on labor market reform, macroeconomic and fiscal policy, and promotion of e-commerce and entrepreneurship, the EU's "Lisbon Agenda" was an attempt to stimulate growth while remaining committed to the EU social model. Some suggest that it has so far failed to achieve its goals in large part because national governments (which retain authority over employment policy, immigration, large public sector workforces, entitlement programs and pensions) have not completed the necessary reforms. With unemployment at 6.9 percent in 2007, generous social programs continue to strain national economies. The European Commission re-launched the Lisbon Agenda in March 2005, promising three percent growth and six million new jobs by 2010. The revamped strategy focuses on developing political consensus within Member States to make the changes necessary to complete elimination of barriers in the internal market, reduce the regulatory burden on business, improve labor market flexibility, provide incentives to work and increase investment in human capital.

===Fiscal and Monetary Policy===
Introduced in 1999, the euro is currently the official currency of fifteen of the 27 EU Member States. United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden chose to retain their national currencies, and some of the newer EU members have yet to meet the strict economic conditions required to adopt the euro. Prior to the euro's launch in 1999, national currency exchange rates of countries intending to join the euro were fixed within an Exchange Rate Mechanism. Following the January 2002 introduction of euro notes and coins into general circulation, national currencies were removed from circulation. Each of the euro area countries agreed to abide by a shared fiscal policy rule book known as the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). This agreement generally obliges national governments to limit government budget deficits to 3 percent of GDP and established a target debt-to-GDP ratio of below sixty percent. Although enforcement actions have been forgiving – France and Germany, for example, avoided sanctions despite missing SGP targets – countries violating the SGP are technically subject to sanctions by the European Commission. As of March 2005, national governments have been granted budget leeway to achieve structural reforms and to combat prolonged stagnation, negative growth or other factors, such as the cost of German reunification or state pensions. The revised standards still require deficits to remain close to the targets; they may only temporarily exceed the three percent limit.

The euro area's monetary policy is set by the European Central Bank (ECB), which must devise a monetary policy to accommodate a wide range of domestic policies and economic conditions within the euro area. The Treaties require that the ECB's primary objective be to maintain price stability (i.e., to keep inflation low). Euro area national governments have sometimes criticized the ECB for guarding against inflation at the expense of interest rate flexibility that could enable struggling economies to gain traction. The ECB's consistent overnight interest rate of two percent has been credited with creating favorable conditions for growth in Spain and Ireland, but has been blamed for hindering growth in France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Non-EU countries have also adopted the euro, including Andorra, United Kingdom base areas, Kosovo, Monaco, Montenegro, and the Vatican City. Additionally, several countries have currencies pegged to the euro, including French African states and those in the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

===Trade===
The EU is the world's largest exporter of goods and services. In 2003, the then-fifteen EU members exported $987 billion worth of goods to non-EU countries. The EU's exports grew rapidly between 1996 and 2000 but have grown more slowly since. Except for 2002, the EU as a whole has posted a trade deficit every year since 1999; it was $62 billion in 2004. The EU is a major exporter of chemicals, transport equipment, and industrial machinery. The EU has large trade deficits in raw materials and energy, and a small deficit in food and drink.

The U.S. is the EU's main trading partner by a wide margin. U.S. goods and services exports to the EU reached $283 billion in 2004, while U.S. goods and services imports from the EU totaled $388 billion. Asian economies such as Japan and China, however, account for an increasingly important share of EU trade. The EU's two-way merchandise trade with China grew to $223 million in 2004, while merchandise trade with Japan was $149 million. Internal trade between Euro area and non-Euro area countries was down one percent in the first quarter of 2005, but the EU's external trade was up four percent, particularly with Russia and Norway.

Member States have given almost exclusive authority to the EU to negotiate trade treaties that bind the Member States. The European Community (EC) is a full member of the World Trade Organization and plays an active role in the Doha Development Round to foster international trade in services and agricultural products. Bilaterally, the EC maintains framework agreements to facilitate trade flows with thirty-five countries worldwide, mostly elsewhere in Europe, in North Africa, and in the Middle East.

===Foreign Direct Investment===
The EU is both a major destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) and a major source of FDI. U.S. foreign direct investment in the EU totaled $83.3 billion in 2004; EU FDI into the U.S. totaled $46.6 billion. Following strong year-upon-year growth in the late 1990s, however, inward and outward flows of FDI have contracted since 2001. The EU is a net recipient of FDI from Japan, receiving $81 billion in 2003. Conversely, the EU is a net investor in Canada ($86 billion in outward investment in 2003), and China ($29 billion in outward investment in 2003). Growth of intra-EU FDI has increased rapidly in recent years and has increased much faster than FDI in non-EU countries.

The pattern of foreign investment by European firms reflects deep commercial ties with the United States. U.S. and EU businesses invest heavily and operate profitably on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. affiliates in Europe accounted for 56 percent of the aggregate output of U.S. affiliates worldwide. European firms were the largest foreign investors in 44 U.S. states and the second largest foreign investor in the remaining six. Sales by U.S. affiliates in Europe totaled $1.5 trillion in 2002, more than double those of U.S. affiliates in the Asia/Pacific region. European affiliate sales in the U.S. were $1.2 trillion in 2002, more than three times the value of U.S. imports from Europe.

Intra-firm trade involving foreign affiliates is particularly important to the transatlantic trade and investment relationship. Approximately 58 percent of U.S. imports from the EU in 2004 involved trade between related parties, as did 30 percent of U.S. exports to Europe in 2003. This high level of intra-firm trade has contributed to the persistence of the U.S. trade deficit with Europe even as the dollar has lost value against the Euro since 2002.

===Budget===
The EU's budget is essentially made up of Member State contributions. Equivalent to roughly one percent of the Member States' combined gross national income (GNI), it was $123 billion in 2005. The UK receives a rebate for some of its contribution, as the CAP benefits the UK less than other states. In June 2005, the EU failed to agree on a budget plan for 2007 through 2013, due in part to a disagreement between the UK and France over the persistence of the UK budget rebate and the funding of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Costs attributable to the CAP constitute the EU's largest annual budget item, benefiting farmers across the EU, especially in France. Payments to net-recipient Member States, designed to reduce economic and social disparities among EU countries and regions, are another budget item which has become more contentious with the accession of ten new states poorer than the EU average.

==Criticism==
A significant number of Europeans on the political right of center are opposed to the EU on the grounds that it undermines national sovereignty and identity. Such people are known in British English as "Eurosceptics", and they include such people as the former British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] (although, while in power, she committed Britain to the 1986 [[Single European Act]], a major integrationist measure) and the members of the [[UK Independence Party]]. They also, however, include less well-respected politicians belonging to far right or [[nationalism|nationalist]] parties, such as France's [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]. There are also extreme left-wing opponents of the European Union, such as ''Die Linke'' in Germany, who regard it as constituting an anti-progressive "Fortress Europe", and claim that EU membership impedes countries from following socialist policies.{{fact}}

==History==
Following World War II, traditional European rivals sought to solidify peace by bringing their nations together under a common institutional structure. Influenced by his compatriot Jean Monnet, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman officially tabled a plan on May 9, 1950 to pool French and German coal and steel production under an organization that would be open to other European countries. German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer supported this proposal, and six founding countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – took an early step toward European integration by establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) the following year.

After failing to establish a European Defense Community in the 1950s, the six countries then decided to set up a common market. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, they created the European Economic Community (EEC), with an objective of liberating the movement of goods, capital, workers and services. (The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) was also established at this time.) The Treaty of Rome established the basic institutions and decision-making mechanisms still in place in today's European Union. As of July 1, 1968, the EEC abolished customs duties between Member States on manufactured goods. New policies, including a common agricultural policy (CAP) and a common trade policy, were in place by the end of the 1960s.

The success of the European integration project during a period of steady economic growth in the 1960s set the stage for a first enlargement – the accession of the UK, Ireland and Denmark – in 1973. Further "deepening" of European integration followed: the Community acquired executive authority in social, regional, and environment policies. The benefits of economic convergence became more evident in the context of the 1970s energy crisis and financial turmoil, which led to the launch of the European Monetary System in 1979. In the same year, the first direct elections to the European Parliament (EP) took place. Previously, delegates from national parliaments had represented their country's legislative bodies at the EP in Strasbourg, France.

The Community further expanded southward with the accession of Greece (1981, the second enlargement), followed by Spain and Portugal (1986, the third enlargement). These accessions led the EEC to adopt "structural programs" in order to reduce economic and social disparities among its regions.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Community began to assert itself on the international scene with the conclusion of agreements with southern Mediterranean countries. Starting in 1963, the EEC signed four successive Lome Conventions, which guaranteed trading advantages and development aid for Member States' former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP).

World recession and internal disputes over Member States' financial burdens gave way, from 1985 onward, to renewed efforts for economic integration, enshrined in the 1985 "Single European Act" (SEA) and marked by the 1992 "Single Market Project." The SEA set January 1, 1993 as the date by which an internal single market was to be established and, by extending the practice of majority voting rather than unanimity in the EU Council, gave Community institutions the means of adopting the 300 Community-wide Directives required to abolish the remaining barriers and obstacles to intra-Community trade. In 1995, the Community entered into the "Barcelona" partnership with twelve southern Mediterranean countries. The partnership, reinforced by agreements on social, cultural, and human cooperation, was intended to lead to a free-trade area.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall and German unification prompted Member States to negotiate the 1992 Treaty on European Union (the "Maastricht Treaty"). In addition to establishing the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty set an ambitious program of further integration: establishment of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by 1999 (part of the "First or 'Community' Pillar"), setting up of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) ("Second Pillar"); and cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) ("Third Pillar"). Shortly thereafter, in 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU – the fourth enlargement.

Signed in 1997 and entering into force on May 1, 1999, the Amsterdam Treaty partially streamlined the EU institutional structure. Its most significant effects were: (1) to transfer aspects of Justice and Home Affairs policy to the Community Pillar, enabling the Commission to propose decisions to be taken by the EU Council by qualified majority voting instead of by consensus, and (2) to establish a High Representative for the CFSP (who also serves as Secretary-General of the Council Secretariat). Ten countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus began accession procedures in 1997, followed by Malta. The prospect of eastward enlargement raised significant resource concerns and prompted the adoption in March 1999 of the "Agenda 2000" package, which covered amendments to the CAP and EU structural policies, as well as a budgetary framework through 2006.

In May 1998, EU heads of government officially designated eleven Member States eligible to adopt a single currency. Greece initially did not qualify, and Sweden, the UK and Denmark "opted out." On January 1, 1999, the euro became the official currency of the EU, and the European Central Bank (ECB) put euro notes and coins into circulation on January 1, 2002. Today, fifteen countries use the euro: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

Streamlining the size and procedures of EU institutions to make the expanded EU more efficient was also an aim of the 2003 Treaty of Nice. A year later, in May 2004, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU, and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania acceded, bringing total membership to 27. Candidate countries currently include Turkey, FYR Macedonia and Croatia, and potential candidates include the rest of the Western Balkan states.

In October 2004, Member States signed an EU Constitutional Treaty in Rome, intending that it take effect on November 1, 2006 by replacing all previous treaties. French and Dutch voters rejected the treaty through referendums in 2005, thereby suspending the ratification process. In 2007, a modified Treaty of Lisbon was agreed upon, which retains most of the reforms of the Constitution, but amends rather than replaces previous treaties. If ratified by all member states, it is expected to enter into force in 2009, ready for the elections of the Parliament in June, which will decide the Presidents of the Parliament, Commission and Council.

==Candidates for membership==
There are three official candidates being considered for membership, [[Turkey]], [[Croatia]] and [[The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]]. The western Balkan states of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania are officially ''potential candidates''. A country that is expected to accede is required to make some economic, social and governmental changes to bring it in line with other member states.

There is some conflict between current EU member states over possible candidates for membership. For example, The United Kingdom is in favor of adding Turkey to the EU, while France is strongly against Turkey's possible membership.

Gateway to the European Union (EU official website) <ref>http://europa.eu/</ref>

==Member states==
*[[Austria]]
*[[Belgium]]
*[[Bulgaria]]
*[[Cyprus]]
*[[Czech Republic]]
*[[Denmark]]
*[[Estonia]]
*[[Finland]]
*[[France]]
*[[Germany]]
*[[Greece]]
*[[Hungary]]
*[[Ireland]]
*[[Italy]]
*[[Latvia]]
*[[Lithuania]]
*[[Luxembourg]]
*[[Malta]]
*[[Netherlands]]
*[[Poland]]
*[[Portugal]]
*[[Romania]]
*[[Slovakia]]
*[[Slovenia]]
*[[Spain]]
*[[Sweden]]
*[[United Kingdom]]

==References==
<References/>

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/54126.htm]}}

[[Category:Europe]]
[[category:politics]]

European Union

2008-04-05T17:54:53Z

Europeanunion: fixed infobox

{{Country
|name =''European Union''
|map =European_Union.jpg
|flag =567rugyhj.png
|arms =
|capital =
|capital-raw = [[Brussels]], [[Luxembourg]], [[Strasbourg]]
|government =
|government-raw = Sui generis [[supranationalism]]
|language = 23 official languages
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw = José Manuel Barroso (Commission) Hans-Gert Pöttering (Parliament)
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =4,324,782 km² (1,669,807 sq mi)
|pop =497,198,740 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$16,574 billion (2007 IMF)
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =$33,482 (2007 IMF)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =.eu
}}
The '''European Union (EU)''' is a legal, political and economic union of 27 [[European]] countries. It was formed in 1993 with the ratification of the [[Maastricht Treaty]], though its predecessor, the European Economic Community, was founded in 1957.

As a set of institutions, the EU has more powers over its member states and their citizens than other international bodies; many of its competencies are supranational (above the member states) rather than intergovernmental (between them). Despite having a legal personality and sovereignty in agreed areas, it is not regarded as a federation or state in its own right: rather, it stands somewhere between these two points. Fifteen member states use a common [[currency]], the [[euro]]; five other states formally agree to use it, and four others use it without formal agreement.

==Structure==

===The European Commission===
The role and responsibilities of the European Commission place it at the center of the EU's decision-making process. Acting as the EU's policy and executive engine, the Commission is composed of 27 Commissioners, one from each state, and is supported by a substantial staff located primarily in [[Brussels]], [[Belgium]]. In matters relating to economic integration ("First or 'Community' Pillar"), only the Commission has the right to propose legislation for approval by the EU Council and European Parliament. As "guardian of the Treaties," the Commission ensures that EU laws are applied and upheld throughout the EU, prosecuting Member States and other institutions for failing to follow treaty precepts or otherwise apply Community law. The Commission has full authority to enforce Community competition policy, and its policing of implementation of Community legislation preserves the integrity of the EU single market. The Commission likewise manages and develops the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), implements the budget, and represents the European Community in its areas of competence, notably including international trade negotiations.

The Commission President is appointed by agreement of the EU heads of government and is subject to approval by the European Parliament. Commissioners serve for a renewable five-year term. New Commissioners are identified by Member State governments in consultation with the President-designate of the Commission and are normally put in place at the beginning of the term of the Commission President. The entire Commission must be confirmed as a collective whole by the European Parliament before its formal appointment by common accord of EU governments.

===The European Council===
The European Council brings together EU heads of government and the President of the European Commission; foreign ministers of Member States also participate. Finance ministers are normally included when the leaders discuss questions related to the euro and the economy. The European Council meets at least twice a year, usually quarterly, at the end of each Presidency, to review major EU projects, set guidelines for policies and provide necessary guidance. The Presidency of the Council rotates every six months among EU Member States (January-June; July- December). Its role has become increasingly important with the expansion of EU responsibilities and competencies. The Presidency organizes and presides over the meetings of the European Council and EU Council (ministerial) meetings, drafts compromises, and seeks solutions to problems submitted to the European Council.

===Council of Ministers===
The Council of Ministers of the European Union (the "EU Council") is the body in which representatives of the individual Member State governments, usually ministers, legislate for the EU, set its political objectives, coordinate national policies and resolve differences among their governments and with other EU bodies. Legally speaking, there is only one Council, but it meets in nine different formations, depending on the matters on its agenda. Foreign ministers usually meet at least once a month in the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC), which deals with major foreign policy issues and plays a coordinating role. Ministers for the Economy and Finance (ECOFIN) and ministers responsible for agriculture also hold monthly meetings. Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) hold regular meetings to coordinate policies within their competence.

The Council holds formal sessions in its Brussels headquarters, except in April, June and October, when all sessions take place in Luxembourg. Most formations of the Council also meet informally (tasking no legally binding decisions) in the country holding the EU Presidency, usually once in the course of the Presidency's six-month term. The most prominent of these informal meetings is the so-called "Gymnich" meeting of foreign ministers, named for a town in Germany where the first such meeting took place.

The Council takes most decisions under the Community Pillar by qualified majority voting (QMV) but endeavors to reach the broadest possible consensus before approving legislation. Unanimity is required for a number of specific areas related to economic integration (e.g. taxation), constitutional matters such as amendments to the treaties, the launching of a new common policy, the accession of a new Member State, and matters falling within the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Security and Defense Policy, and aspects of law enforcement and judicial cooperation. The number of votes cast by each Member State when the EU Council votes by qualified majority voting was determined by the Nice Treaty and roughly correlates to the size of its population.

===The European Parliament===
The European Parliament is the largest trans-national parliament in the world, and the second-largest overall (behind [[India]]), with an electorate of almost half a billion. Members of the Parliament are directly elected by all EU citizens for five-year terms; elections follow national election procedures, except they have to be a form of proportional representation. Members do not sit in national delegations; rather, they sit in groups according to political affiliation (including Socialists, Christian-Democrats/Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, etc.).

Parliament's powers have gradually grown with the entry into force of the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1993) and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999). Parliament shares decision-making power on an equal footing with the Council in many areas under the Community Pillar to which the "co-decision procedure" applies. The European Parliament is one of the two branches with budgetary authority – the Council is the other. The signature of the EP president brings the overall EU budget into effect.

The European Parliament also plays a role in the process of selecting the President and other members of the Commission. The European Council's nomination of the President is subject to approval by the Parliament. The EP holds U.S.-style public hearings of Commission nominees before taking a formal vote to approve the nomination of the Commission as a body. Parliament has the power to censure the entire Commission, but not to dismiss individual Commissioners.

===The European Court of Justice===
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ensures uniform interpretation and application of both the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the secondary legislation and other law adopted under their authority. To enable it to carry out that task, the Court has wide jurisdiction to hear various types of cases. For example, the Court has the authority to hear and issue binding judgments in lawsuits that seek to annul a law adopted by the EU, to compel an EU institution to act, or to require that a Member State comply with EU law. The ECJ may issue clarifications of EU law (in response to a request for a preliminary ruling from any Member State court) and hears appeals on legal questions arising out of cases at the Court of First Instance. The ECJ currently has 27 justices and eight advocates-general, who are appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States and who hold office for six-year renewable terms.

==Sovereignty==
The member states of the European Union fall under the jurisdiction of the Union's legislative and judicial institutions (the Court of Justice, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament) in those competences that they have conferred to the Union (the principle of subsidiarity). Similar to Federal Law trumping State Law in United States politics, EU member states are obliged to follow the laws set forth by the European Court of Justice, even if their national laws are contradictory. This system of government pools sovereignty in those agreed areas from the nation, and rests it in the EU institutions. Some political theorists argue that the EU is thus the death of the nation, as by the Treaty of Westphalia, nations are defined by their right of self-sovereignty; however, each member state has a legal right to cede from the EU, which non-sovereign components of states do not.

==Economy==
The institutions of the European Union were originally created to oversee the operation of the several economic communities that later became the Single European Market. Even as the EU's political integration has continued, the area of greatest integration has always been in the economic sphere: goods, capital, and labor move freely between Member States (with exceptions for goods which pose a public health risk), businesses in all Member States are increasingly subject to common basic rules, and fifteen of the 27 Member States use a common currency, the euro. The rest of the states are legally obliged to adopt the euro when their economies meet strict ''Convergence Criteria''. The fifteen Euro-area countries share a common monetary policy administered by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany. The EU strives to eliminate internal barriers to the free flow of goods, services, labor, and capital, and to promote the overall convergence of living standards. Internationally, the EU aims to strengthen Europe's trade position and capitalize on the political and economic leverage that a large, unified market brings.

===Growth===
The EU is the world's largest economic area (the U.S. is second) with a 2007 GDP of $16.6 trillion; however, growth in many western Member States in the recent past has been slow compared to those in the east. Between 2001 and 2003, the overall growth rate dropped from 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent. The EU economy staged a,short-lived recovery in 2004 of 2.4%, but fell to 1.8 percent in 2005, then rose to 2.8% in 2006 and 2.4% in 2007. Within the euro area, growth varies as much as 4.5 percentage points between the fastest and slowest-growing economies. In 2005, many of the EU's largest economies, including Germany, France and Italy, grew by less than two percent. Outside the euro area, growth remains strong, particularly in the Central and Eastern European countries that joined the EU in May 2004.

In spring 2000, the EU committed to a ten-year strategic goal of transforming the EU into a more competitive, knowledge-based economy capable of sustaining higher levels of growth. Focusing on labor market reform, macroeconomic and fiscal policy, and promotion of e-commerce and entrepreneurship, the EU's "Lisbon Agenda" was an attempt to stimulate growth while remaining committed to the EU social model. Some suggest that it has so far failed to achieve its goals in large part because national governments (which retain authority over employment policy, immigration, large public sector workforces, entitlement programs and pensions) have not completed the necessary reforms. With unemployment at 6.9 percent in 2007, generous social programs continue to strain national economies. The European Commission re-launched the Lisbon Agenda in March 2005, promising three percent growth and six million new jobs by 2010. The revamped strategy focuses on developing political consensus within Member States to make the changes necessary to complete elimination of barriers in the internal market, reduce the regulatory burden on business, improve labor market flexibility, provide incentives to work and increase investment in human capital.

===Fiscal and Monetary Policy===
Introduced in 1999, the euro is currently the official currency of fifteen of the 27 EU Member States. United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden chose to retain their national currencies, and some of the newer EU members have yet to meet the strict economic conditions required to adopt the euro. Prior to the euro's launch in 1999, national currency exchange rates of countries intending to join the euro were fixed within an Exchange Rate Mechanism. Following the January 2002 introduction of euro notes and coins into general circulation, national currencies were removed from circulation. Each of the euro area countries agreed to abide by a shared fiscal policy rule book known as the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). This agreement generally obliges national governments to limit government budget deficits to 3 percent of GDP and established a target debt-to-GDP ratio of below sixty percent. Although enforcement actions have been forgiving – France and Germany, for example, avoided sanctions despite missing SGP targets – countries violating the SGP are technically subject to sanctions by the European Commission. As of March 2005, national governments have been granted budget leeway to achieve structural reforms and to combat prolonged stagnation, negative growth or other factors, such as the cost of German reunification or state pensions. The revised standards still require deficits to remain close to the targets; they may only temporarily exceed the three percent limit.

The euro area's monetary policy is set by the European Central Bank (ECB), which must devise a monetary policy to accommodate a wide range of domestic policies and economic conditions within the euro area. The Treaties require that the ECB's primary objective be to maintain price stability (i.e., to keep inflation low). Euro area national governments have sometimes criticized the ECB for guarding against inflation at the expense of interest rate flexibility that could enable struggling economies to gain traction. The ECB's consistent overnight interest rate of two percent has been credited with creating favorable conditions for growth in Spain and Ireland, but has been blamed for hindering growth in France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Non-EU countries have also adopted the euro, including Andorra, United Kingdom base areas, Kosovo, Monaco, Montenegro, and the Vatican City. Additionally, several countries have currencies pegged to the euro, including French African states and those in the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

===Trade===
The EU is the world's largest exporter of goods and services. In 2003, the then-fifteen EU members exported $987 billion worth of goods to non-EU countries. The EU's exports grew rapidly between 1996 and 2000 but have grown more slowly since. Except for 2002, the EU as a whole has posted a trade deficit every year since 1999; it was $62 billion in 2004. The EU is a major exporter of chemicals, transport equipment, and industrial machinery. The EU has large trade deficits in raw materials and energy, and a small deficit in food and drink.

The U.S. is the EU's main trading partner by a wide margin. U.S. goods and services exports to the EU reached $283 billion in 2004, while U.S. goods and services imports from the EU totaled $388 billion. Asian economies such as Japan and China, however, account for an increasingly important share of EU trade. The EU's two-way merchandise trade with China grew to $223 million in 2004, while merchandise trade with Japan was $149 million. Internal trade between Euro area and non-Euro area countries was down one percent in the first quarter of 2005, but the EU's external trade was up four percent, particularly with Russia and Norway.

Member States have given almost exclusive authority to the EU to negotiate trade treaties that bind the Member States. The European Community (EC) is a full member of the World Trade Organization and plays an active role in the Doha Development Round to foster international trade in services and agricultural products. Bilaterally, the EC maintains framework agreements to facilitate trade flows with thirty-five countries worldwide, mostly elsewhere in Europe, in North Africa, and in the Middle East.

===Foreign Direct Investment===
The EU is both a major destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) and a major source of FDI. U.S. foreign direct investment in the EU totaled $83.3 billion in 2004; EU FDI into the U.S. totaled $46.6 billion. Following strong year-upon-year growth in the late 1990s, however, inward and outward flows of FDI have contracted since 2001. The EU is a net recipient of FDI from Japan, receiving $81 billion in 2003. Conversely, the EU is a net investor in Canada ($86 billion in outward investment in 2003), and China ($29 billion in outward investment in 2003). Growth of intra-EU FDI has increased rapidly in recent years and has increased much faster than FDI in non-EU countries.

The pattern of foreign investment by European firms reflects deep commercial ties with the United States. U.S. and EU businesses invest heavily and operate profitably on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. affiliates in Europe accounted for 56 percent of the aggregate output of U.S. affiliates worldwide. European firms were the largest foreign investors in 44 U.S. states and the second largest foreign investor in the remaining six. Sales by U.S. affiliates in Europe totaled $1.5 trillion in 2002, more than double those of U.S. affiliates in the Asia/Pacific region. European affiliate sales in the U.S. were $1.2 trillion in 2002, more than three times the value of U.S. imports from Europe.

Intra-firm trade involving foreign affiliates is particularly important to the transatlantic trade and investment relationship. Approximately 58 percent of U.S. imports from the EU in 2004 involved trade between related parties, as did 30 percent of U.S. exports to Europe in 2003. This high level of intra-firm trade has contributed to the persistence of the U.S. trade deficit with Europe even as the dollar has lost value against the Euro since 2002.

===Budget===
The EU's budget is essentially made up of Member State contributions. Equivalent to roughly one percent of the Member States' combined gross national income (GNI), it was $123 billion in 2005. The UK receives a rebate for some of its contribution, as the CAP benefits the UK less than other states. In June 2005, the EU failed to agree on a budget plan for 2007 through 2013, due in part to a disagreement between the UK and France over the persistence of the UK budget rebate and the funding of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Costs attributable to the CAP constitute the EU's largest annual budget item, benefiting farmers across the EU, especially in France. Payments to net-recipient Member States, designed to reduce economic and social disparities among EU countries and regions, are another budget item which has become more contentious with the accession of ten new states poorer than the EU average.

==Criticism==
A significant number of Europeans on the political right of center are opposed to the EU on the grounds that it undermines national sovereignty and identity. Such people are known in British English as "Eurosceptics", and they include such people as the former British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] (although, while in power, she committed Britain to the 1986 [[Single European Act]], a major integrationist measure) and the members of the [[UK Independence Party]]. They also, however, include less well-respected politicians belonging to far right or [[nationalism|nationalist]] parties, such as France's [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]. There are also extreme left-wing opponents of the European Union, such as ''Die Linke'' in Germany, who regard it as constituting an anti-progressive "Fortress Europe", and claim that EU membership impedes countries from following socialist policies.{{fact}}

==History==
Following World War II, traditional European rivals sought to solidify peace by bringing their nations together under a common institutional structure. Influenced by his compatriot Jean Monnet, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman officially tabled a plan on May 9, 1950 to pool French and German coal and steel production under an organization that would be open to other European countries. German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer supported this proposal, and six founding countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – took an early step toward European integration by establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) the following year.

After failing to establish a European Defense Community in the 1950s, the six countries then decided to set up a common market. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, they created the European Economic Community (EEC), with an objective of liberating the movement of goods, capital, workers and services. (The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) was also established at this time.) The Treaty of Rome established the basic institutions and decision-making mechanisms still in place in today's European Union. As of July 1, 1968, the EEC abolished customs duties between Member States on manufactured goods. New policies, including a common agricultural policy (CAP) and a common trade policy, were in place by the end of the 1960s.

The success of the European integration project during a period of steady economic growth in the 1960s set the stage for a first enlargement – the accession of the UK, Ireland and Denmark – in 1973. Further "deepening" of European integration followed: the Community acquired executive authority in social, regional, and environment policies. The benefits of economic convergence became more evident in the context of the 1970s energy crisis and financial turmoil, which led to the launch of the European Monetary System in 1979. In the same year, the first direct elections to the European Parliament (EP) took place. Previously, delegates from national parliaments had represented their country's legislative bodies at the EP in Strasbourg, France.

The Community further expanded southward with the accession of Greece (1981, the second enlargement), followed by Spain and Portugal (1986, the third enlargement). These accessions led the EEC to adopt "structural programs" in order to reduce economic and social disparities among its regions.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Community began to assert itself on the international scene with the conclusion of agreements with southern Mediterranean countries. Starting in 1963, the EEC signed four successive Lome Conventions, which guaranteed trading advantages and development aid for Member States' former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP).

World recession and internal disputes over Member States' financial burdens gave way, from 1985 onward, to renewed efforts for economic integration, enshrined in the 1985 "Single European Act" (SEA) and marked by the 1992 "Single Market Project." The SEA set January 1, 1993 as the date by which an internal single market was to be established and, by extending the practice of majority voting rather than unanimity in the EU Council, gave Community institutions the means of adopting the 300 Community-wide Directives required to abolish the remaining barriers and obstacles to intra-Community trade. In 1995, the Community entered into the "Barcelona" partnership with twelve southern Mediterranean countries. The partnership, reinforced by agreements on social, cultural, and human cooperation, was intended to lead to a free-trade area.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall and German unification prompted Member States to negotiate the 1992 Treaty on European Union (the "Maastricht Treaty"). In addition to establishing the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty set an ambitious program of further integration: establishment of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by 1999 (part of the "First or 'Community' Pillar"), setting up of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) ("Second Pillar"); and cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) ("Third Pillar"). Shortly thereafter, in 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU – the fourth enlargement.

Signed in 1997 and entering into force on May 1, 1999, the Amsterdam Treaty partially streamlined the EU institutional structure. Its most significant effects were: (1) to transfer aspects of Justice and Home Affairs policy to the Community Pillar, enabling the Commission to propose decisions to be taken by the EU Council by qualified majority voting instead of by consensus, and (2) to establish a High Representative for the CFSP (who also serves as Secretary-General of the Council Secretariat). Ten countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus began accession procedures in 1997, followed by Malta. The prospect of eastward enlargement raised significant resource concerns and prompted the adoption in March 1999 of the "Agenda 2000" package, which covered amendments to the CAP and EU structural policies, as well as a budgetary framework through 2006.

In May 1998, EU heads of government officially designated eleven Member States eligible to adopt a single currency. Greece initially did not qualify, and Sweden, the UK and Denmark "opted out." On January 1, 1999, the euro became the official currency of the EU, and the European Central Bank (ECB) put euro notes and coins into circulation on January 1, 2002. Today, fifteen countries use the euro: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

Streamlining the size and procedures of EU institutions to make the expanded EU more efficient was also an aim of the 2003 Treaty of Nice. A year later, in May 2004, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU, and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania acceded, bringing total membership to 27. Candidate countries currently include Turkey, FYR Macedonia and Croatia, and potential candidates include the rest of the Western Balkan states.

In October 2004, Member States signed an EU Constitutional Treaty in Rome, intending that it take effect on November 1, 2006 by replacing all previous treaties. French and Dutch voters rejected the treaty through referendums in 2005, thereby suspending the ratification process. In 2007, a modified Treaty of Lisbon was agreed upon, which retains most of the reforms of the Constitution, but amends rather than replaces previous treaties. If ratified by all member states, it is expected to enter into force in 2009, ready for the elections of the Parliament in June, which will decide the Presidents of the Parliament, Commission and Council.

==Candidates for membership==
There are three official candidates being considered for membership, [[Turkey]], [[Croatia]] and [[The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]]. The western Balkan states of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania are officially ''potential candidates''. A country that is expected to accede is required to make some economic, social and governmental changes to bring it in line with other member states.

There is some conflict between current EU member states over possible candidates for membership. For example, The United Kingdom is in favor of adding Turkey to the EU, while France is strongly against Turkey's possible membership.

Gateway to the European Union (EU official website) <ref>http://europa.eu/</ref>

==Member nations==
*[[Austria]]
*[[Belgium]]
*[[Bulgaria]]
*[[Cyprus]]
*[[Czech Republic]]
*[[Denmark]]
*[[Estonia]]
*[[Finland]]
*[[France]]
*[[Germany]]
*[[Greece]]
*[[Hungary]]
*[[Ireland]]
*[[Italy]]
*[[Latvia]]
*[[Lithuania]]
*[[Luxembourg]]
*[[Malta]]
*[[Netherlands]]
*[[Poland]]
*[[Portugal]]
*[[Romania]]
*[[Slovakia]]
*[[Slovenia]]
*[[Spain]]
*[[Sweden]]
*[[United Kingdom]]

==References==
<References/>

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/54126.htm]}}

[[Category:Europe]]
[[category:politics]]

European Union

2008-04-05T17:41:37Z

Europeanunion: updated infobox data

{{Country
|name =''European Union''
|map =European_Union.jpg
|flag =567rugyhj.png
|arms =
|capital = Brussels, Luxembourg, Strasbourg
|capital-raw =
|government =Sui generis supranationalism
|government-raw =
|language = 23 Official languages
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president = José Manuel Barroso (Commission) Hans-Gert Pöttering (Parliament)
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =4,324,782 km² (1,669,807 sq mi)
|pop =497,198,740 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$16,574 billion (2007 IMF)
|gdp-pc =$33,482 (2007 IMF)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =.eu
}}
The '''European Union (EU)''' is a legal, political and economic union of 27 [[European]] countries. It was formed in 1993 with the ratification of the [[Maastricht Treaty]], though its predecessor, the European Economic Community, was founded in 1957.

As a set of institutions, the EU has more powers over its member states and their citizens than other international bodies; many of its competencies are supranational (above the member states) rather than intergovernmental (between them). Despite having a legal personality and sovereignty in agreed areas, it is not regarded as a federation or state in its own right: rather, it stands somewhere between these two points. Fifteen member states use a common [[currency]], the [[euro]]; five other states formally agree to use it, and four others use it without formal agreement.

==Structure==

===The European Commission===
The role and responsibilities of the European Commission place it at the center of the EU's decision-making process. Acting as the EU's policy and executive engine, the Commission is composed of 27 Commissioners, one from each state, and is supported by a substantial staff located primarily in [[Brussels]], [[Belgium]]. In matters relating to economic integration ("First or 'Community' Pillar"), only the Commission has the right to propose legislation for approval by the EU Council and European Parliament. As "guardian of the Treaties," the Commission ensures that EU laws are applied and upheld throughout the EU, prosecuting Member States and other institutions for failing to follow treaty precepts or otherwise apply Community law. The Commission has full authority to enforce Community competition policy, and its policing of implementation of Community legislation preserves the integrity of the EU single market. The Commission likewise manages and develops the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), implements the budget, and represents the European Community in its areas of competence, notably including international trade negotiations.

The Commission President is appointed by agreement of the EU heads of government and is subject to approval by the European Parliament. Commissioners serve for a renewable five-year term. New Commissioners are identified by Member State governments in consultation with the President-designate of the Commission and are normally put in place at the beginning of the term of the Commission President. The entire Commission must be confirmed as a collective whole by the European Parliament before its formal appointment by common accord of EU governments.

===The European Council===
The European Council brings together EU heads of government and the President of the European Commission; foreign ministers of Member States also participate. Finance ministers are normally included when the leaders discuss questions related to the euro and the economy. The European Council meets at least twice a year, usually quarterly, at the end of each Presidency, to review major EU projects, set guidelines for policies and provide necessary guidance. The Presidency of the Council rotates every six months among EU Member States (January-June; July- December). Its role has become increasingly important with the expansion of EU responsibilities and competencies. The Presidency organizes and presides over the meetings of the European Council and EU Council (ministerial) meetings, drafts compromises, and seeks solutions to problems submitted to the European Council.

===Council of Ministers===
The Council of Ministers of the European Union (the "EU Council") is the body in which representatives of the individual Member State governments, usually ministers, legislate for the EU, set its political objectives, coordinate national policies and resolve differences among their governments and with other EU bodies. Legally speaking, there is only one Council, but it meets in nine different formations, depending on the matters on its agenda. Foreign ministers usually meet at least once a month in the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC), which deals with major foreign policy issues and plays a coordinating role. Ministers for the Economy and Finance (ECOFIN) and ministers responsible for agriculture also hold monthly meetings. Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) hold regular meetings to coordinate policies within their competence.

The Council holds formal sessions in its Brussels headquarters, except in April, June and October, when all sessions take place in Luxembourg. Most formations of the Council also meet informally (tasking no legally binding decisions) in the country holding the EU Presidency, usually once in the course of the Presidency's six-month term. The most prominent of these informal meetings is the so-called "Gymnich" meeting of foreign ministers, named for a town in Germany where the first such meeting took place.

The Council takes most decisions under the Community Pillar by qualified majority voting (QMV) but endeavors to reach the broadest possible consensus before approving legislation. Unanimity is required for a number of specific areas related to economic integration (e.g. taxation), constitutional matters such as amendments to the treaties, the launching of a new common policy, the accession of a new Member State, and matters falling within the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Security and Defense Policy, and aspects of law enforcement and judicial cooperation. The number of votes cast by each Member State when the EU Council votes by qualified majority voting was determined by the Nice Treaty and roughly correlates to the size of its population.

===The European Parliament===
The European Parliament is the largest trans-national parliament in the world, and the second-largest overall (behind [[India]]), with an electorate of almost half a billion. Members of the Parliament are directly elected by all EU citizens for five-year terms; elections follow national election procedures, except they have to be a form of proportional representation. Members do not sit in national delegations; rather, they sit in groups according to political affiliation (including Socialists, Christian-Democrats/Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, etc.).

Parliament's powers have gradually grown with the entry into force of the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1993) and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999). Parliament shares decision-making power on an equal footing with the Council in many areas under the Community Pillar to which the "co-decision procedure" applies. The European Parliament is one of the two branches with budgetary authority – the Council is the other. The signature of the EP president brings the overall EU budget into effect.

The European Parliament also plays a role in the process of selecting the President and other members of the Commission. The European Council's nomination of the President is subject to approval by the Parliament. The EP holds U.S.-style public hearings of Commission nominees before taking a formal vote to approve the nomination of the Commission as a body. Parliament has the power to censure the entire Commission, but not to dismiss individual Commissioners.

===The European Court of Justice===
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ensures uniform interpretation and application of both the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the secondary legislation and other law adopted under their authority. To enable it to carry out that task, the Court has wide jurisdiction to hear various types of cases. For example, the Court has the authority to hear and issue binding judgments in lawsuits that seek to annul a law adopted by the EU, to compel an EU institution to act, or to require that a Member State comply with EU law. The ECJ may issue clarifications of EU law (in response to a request for a preliminary ruling from any Member State court) and hears appeals on legal questions arising out of cases at the Court of First Instance. The ECJ currently has 27 justices and eight advocates-general, who are appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States and who hold office for six-year renewable terms.

==Sovereignty==
The member states of the European Union fall under the jurisdiction of the Union's legislative and judicial institutions (the Court of Justice, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament) in those competences that they have conferred to the Union (the principle of subsidiarity). Similar to Federal Law trumping State Law in United States politics, EU member states are obliged to follow the laws set forth by the European Court of Justice, even if their national laws are contradictory. This system of government pools sovereignty in those agreed areas from the nation, and rests it in the EU institutions. Some political theorists argue that the EU is thus the death of the nation, as by the Treaty of Westphalia, nations are defined by their right of self-sovereignty; however, each member state has a legal right to cede from the EU, which non-sovereign components of states do not.

==Economy==
The institutions of the European Union were originally created to oversee the operation of the several economic communities that later became the Single European Market. Even as the EU's political integration has continued, the area of greatest integration has always been in the economic sphere: goods, capital, and labor move freely between Member States (with exceptions for goods which pose a public health risk), businesses in all Member States are increasingly subject to common basic rules, and fifteen of the 27 Member States use a common currency, the euro. The rest of the states are legally obliged to adopt the euro when their economies meet strict ''Convergence Criteria''. The fifteen Euro-area countries share a common monetary policy administered by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany. The EU strives to eliminate internal barriers to the free flow of goods, services, labor, and capital, and to promote the overall convergence of living standards. Internationally, the EU aims to strengthen Europe's trade position and capitalize on the political and economic leverage that a large, unified market brings.

===Growth===
The EU is the world's largest economic area (the U.S. is second) with a 2007 GDP of $16.6 trillion; however, growth in many western Member States in the recent past has been slow compared to those in the east. Between 2001 and 2003, the overall growth rate dropped from 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent. The EU economy staged a,short-lived recovery in 2004 of 2.4%, but fell to 1.8 percent in 2005, then rose to 2.8% in 2006 and 2.4% in 2007. Within the euro area, growth varies as much as 4.5 percentage points between the fastest and slowest-growing economies. In 2005, many of the EU's largest economies, including Germany, France and Italy, grew by less than two percent. Outside the euro area, growth remains strong, particularly in the Central and Eastern European countries that joined the EU in May 2004.

In spring 2000, the EU committed to a ten-year strategic goal of transforming the EU into a more competitive, knowledge-based economy capable of sustaining higher levels of growth. Focusing on labor market reform, macroeconomic and fiscal policy, and promotion of e-commerce and entrepreneurship, the EU's "Lisbon Agenda" was an attempt to stimulate growth while remaining committed to the EU social model. Some suggest that it has so far failed to achieve its goals in large part because national governments (which retain authority over employment policy, immigration, large public sector workforces, entitlement programs and pensions) have not completed the necessary reforms. With unemployment at 6.9 percent in 2007, generous social programs continue to strain national economies. The European Commission re-launched the Lisbon Agenda in March 2005, promising three percent growth and six million new jobs by 2010. The revamped strategy focuses on developing political consensus within Member States to make the changes necessary to complete elimination of barriers in the internal market, reduce the regulatory burden on business, improve labor market flexibility, provide incentives to work and increase investment in human capital.

===Fiscal and Monetary Policy===
Introduced in 1999, the euro is currently the official currency of fifteen of the 27 EU Member States. United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden chose to retain their national currencies, and some of the newer EU members have yet to meet the strict economic conditions required to adopt the euro. Prior to the euro's launch in 1999, national currency exchange rates of countries intending to join the euro were fixed within an Exchange Rate Mechanism. Following the January 2002 introduction of euro notes and coins into general circulation, national currencies were removed from circulation. Each of the euro area countries agreed to abide by a shared fiscal policy rule book known as the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). This agreement generally obliges national governments to limit government budget deficits to 3 percent of GDP and established a target debt-to-GDP ratio of below sixty percent. Although enforcement actions have been forgiving – France and Germany, for example, avoided sanctions despite missing SGP targets – countries violating the SGP are technically subject to sanctions by the European Commission. As of March 2005, national governments have been granted budget leeway to achieve structural reforms and to combat prolonged stagnation, negative growth or other factors, such as the cost of German reunification or state pensions. The revised standards still require deficits to remain close to the targets; they may only temporarily exceed the three percent limit.

The euro area's monetary policy is set by the European Central Bank (ECB), which must devise a monetary policy to accommodate a wide range of domestic policies and economic conditions within the euro area. The Treaties require that the ECB's primary objective be to maintain price stability (i.e., to keep inflation low). Euro area national governments have sometimes criticized the ECB for guarding against inflation at the expense of interest rate flexibility that could enable struggling economies to gain traction. The ECB's consistent overnight interest rate of two percent has been credited with creating favorable conditions for growth in Spain and Ireland, but has been blamed for hindering growth in France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Non-EU countries have also adopted the euro, including Andorra, United Kingdom base areas, Kosovo, Monaco, Montenegro, and the Vatican City. Additionally, several countries have currencies pegged to the euro, including French African states and those in the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

===Trade===
The EU is the world's largest exporter of goods and services. In 2003, the then-fifteen EU members exported $987 billion worth of goods to non-EU countries. The EU's exports grew rapidly between 1996 and 2000 but have grown more slowly since. Except for 2002, the EU as a whole has posted a trade deficit every year since 1999; it was $62 billion in 2004. The EU is a major exporter of chemicals, transport equipment, and industrial machinery. The EU has large trade deficits in raw materials and energy, and a small deficit in food and drink.

The U.S. is the EU's main trading partner by a wide margin. U.S. goods and services exports to the EU reached $283 billion in 2004, while U.S. goods and services imports from the EU totaled $388 billion. Asian economies such as Japan and China, however, account for an increasingly important share of EU trade. The EU's two-way merchandise trade with China grew to $223 million in 2004, while merchandise trade with Japan was $149 million. Internal trade between Euro area and non-Euro area countries was down one percent in the first quarter of 2005, but the EU's external trade was up four percent, particularly with Russia and Norway.

Member States have given almost exclusive authority to the EU to negotiate trade treaties that bind the Member States. The European Community (EC) is a full member of the World Trade Organization and plays an active role in the Doha Development Round to foster international trade in services and agricultural products. Bilaterally, the EC maintains framework agreements to facilitate trade flows with thirty-five countries worldwide, mostly elsewhere in Europe, in North Africa, and in the Middle East.

===Foreign Direct Investment===
The EU is both a major destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) and a major source of FDI. U.S. foreign direct investment in the EU totaled $83.3 billion in 2004; EU FDI into the U.S. totaled $46.6 billion. Following strong year-upon-year growth in the late 1990s, however, inward and outward flows of FDI have contracted since 2001. The EU is a net recipient of FDI from Japan, receiving $81 billion in 2003. Conversely, the EU is a net investor in Canada ($86 billion in outward investment in 2003), and China ($29 billion in outward investment in 2003). Growth of intra-EU FDI has increased rapidly in recent years and has increased much faster than FDI in non-EU countries.

The pattern of foreign investment by European firms reflects deep commercial ties with the United States. U.S. and EU businesses invest heavily and operate profitably on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. affiliates in Europe accounted for 56 percent of the aggregate output of U.S. affiliates worldwide. European firms were the largest foreign investors in 44 U.S. states and the second largest foreign investor in the remaining six. Sales by U.S. affiliates in Europe totaled $1.5 trillion in 2002, more than double those of U.S. affiliates in the Asia/Pacific region. European affiliate sales in the U.S. were $1.2 trillion in 2002, more than three times the value of U.S. imports from Europe.

Intra-firm trade involving foreign affiliates is particularly important to the transatlantic trade and investment relationship. Approximately 58 percent of U.S. imports from the EU in 2004 involved trade between related parties, as did 30 percent of U.S. exports to Europe in 2003. This high level of intra-firm trade has contributed to the persistence of the U.S. trade deficit with Europe even as the dollar has lost value against the Euro since 2002.

===Budget===
The EU's budget is essentially made up of Member State contributions. Equivalent to roughly one percent of the Member States' combined gross national income (GNI), it was $123 billion in 2005. The UK receives a rebate for some of its contribution, as the CAP benefits the UK less than other states. In June 2005, the EU failed to agree on a budget plan for 2007 through 2013, due in part to a disagreement between the UK and France over the persistence of the UK budget rebate and the funding of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Costs attributable to the CAP constitute the EU's largest annual budget item, benefiting farmers across the EU, especially in France. Payments to net-recipient Member States, designed to reduce economic and social disparities among EU countries and regions, are another budget item which has become more contentious with the accession of ten new states poorer than the EU average.

==Criticism==
A significant number of Europeans on the political right of center are opposed to the EU on the grounds that it undermines national sovereignty and identity. Such people are known in British English as "Eurosceptics", and they include such people as the former British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] (although, while in power, she committed Britain to the 1986 [[Single European Act]], a major integrationist measure) and the members of the [[UK Independence Party]]. They also, however, include less well-respected politicians belonging to far right or [[nationalism|nationalist]] parties, such as France's [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]. There are also extreme left-wing opponents of the European Union, such as ''Die Linke'' in Germany, who regard it as constituting an anti-progressive "Fortress Europe", and claim that EU membership impedes countries from following socialist policies.{{fact}}

==History==
Following World War II, traditional European rivals sought to solidify peace by bringing their nations together under a common institutional structure. Influenced by his compatriot Jean Monnet, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman officially tabled a plan on May 9, 1950 to pool French and German coal and steel production under an organization that would be open to other European countries. German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer supported this proposal, and six founding countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – took an early step toward European integration by establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) the following year.

After failing to establish a European Defense Community in the 1950s, the six countries then decided to set up a common market. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, they created the European Economic Community (EEC), with an objective of liberating the movement of goods, capital, workers and services. (The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) was also established at this time.) The Treaty of Rome established the basic institutions and decision-making mechanisms still in place in today's European Union. As of July 1, 1968, the EEC abolished customs duties between Member States on manufactured goods. New policies, including a common agricultural policy (CAP) and a common trade policy, were in place by the end of the 1960s.

The success of the European integration project during a period of steady economic growth in the 1960s set the stage for a first enlargement – the accession of the UK, Ireland and Denmark – in 1973. Further "deepening" of European integration followed: the Community acquired executive authority in social, regional, and environment policies. The benefits of economic convergence became more evident in the context of the 1970s energy crisis and financial turmoil, which led to the launch of the European Monetary System in 1979. In the same year, the first direct elections to the European Parliament (EP) took place. Previously, delegates from national parliaments had represented their country's legislative bodies at the EP in Strasbourg, France.

The Community further expanded southward with the accession of Greece (1981, the second enlargement), followed by Spain and Portugal (1986, the third enlargement). These accessions led the EEC to adopt "structural programs" in order to reduce economic and social disparities among its regions.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Community began to assert itself on the international scene with the conclusion of agreements with southern Mediterranean countries. Starting in 1963, the EEC signed four successive Lome Conventions, which guaranteed trading advantages and development aid for Member States' former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP).

World recession and internal disputes over Member States' financial burdens gave way, from 1985 onward, to renewed efforts for economic integration, enshrined in the 1985 "Single European Act" (SEA) and marked by the 1992 "Single Market Project." The SEA set January 1, 1993 as the date by which an internal single market was to be established and, by extending the practice of majority voting rather than unanimity in the EU Council, gave Community institutions the means of adopting the 300 Community-wide Directives required to abolish the remaining barriers and obstacles to intra-Community trade. In 1995, the Community entered into the "Barcelona" partnership with twelve southern Mediterranean countries. The partnership, reinforced by agreements on social, cultural, and human cooperation, was intended to lead to a free-trade area.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall and German unification prompted Member States to negotiate the 1992 Treaty on European Union (the "Maastricht Treaty"). In addition to establishing the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty set an ambitious program of further integration: establishment of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by 1999 (part of the "First or 'Community' Pillar"), setting up of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) ("Second Pillar"); and cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) ("Third Pillar"). Shortly thereafter, in 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU – the fourth enlargement.

Signed in 1997 and entering into force on May 1, 1999, the Amsterdam Treaty partially streamlined the EU institutional structure. Its most significant effects were: (1) to transfer aspects of Justice and Home Affairs policy to the Community Pillar, enabling the Commission to propose decisions to be taken by the EU Council by qualified majority voting instead of by consensus, and (2) to establish a High Representative for the CFSP (who also serves as Secretary-General of the Council Secretariat). Ten countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus began accession procedures in 1997, followed by Malta. The prospect of eastward enlargement raised significant resource concerns and prompted the adoption in March 1999 of the "Agenda 2000" package, which covered amendments to the CAP and EU structural policies, as well as a budgetary framework through 2006.

In May 1998, EU heads of government officially designated eleven Member States eligible to adopt a single currency. Greece initially did not qualify, and Sweden, the UK and Denmark "opted out." On January 1, 1999, the euro became the official currency of the EU, and the European Central Bank (ECB) put euro notes and coins into circulation on January 1, 2002. Today, fifteen countries use the euro: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

Streamlining the size and procedures of EU institutions to make the expanded EU more efficient was also an aim of the 2003 Treaty of Nice. A year later, in May 2004, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU, and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania acceded, bringing total membership to 27. Candidate countries currently include Turkey, FYR Macedonia and Croatia, and potential candidates include the rest of the Western Balkan states.

In October 2004, Member States signed an EU Constitutional Treaty in Rome, intending that it take effect on November 1, 2006 by replacing all previous treaties. French and Dutch voters rejected the treaty through referendums in 2005, thereby suspending the ratification process. In 2007, a modified Treaty of Lisbon was agreed upon, which retains most of the reforms of the Constitution, but amends rather than replaces previous treaties. If ratified by all member states, it is expected to enter into force in 2009, ready for the elections of the Parliament in June, which will decide the Presidents of the Parliament, Commission and Council.

==Candidates for membership==
There are three official candidates being considered for membership, [[Turkey]], [[Croatia]] and [[The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]]. The western Balkan states of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania are officially ''potential candidates''. A country that is expected to accede is required to make some economic, social and governmental changes to bring it in line with other member states.

There is some conflict between current EU member states over possible candidates for membership. For example, The United Kingdom is in favor of adding Turkey to the EU, while France is strongly against Turkey's possible membership.

Gateway to the European Union (EU official website) <ref>http://europa.eu/</ref>

==Member nations==
*[[Austria]]
*[[Belgium]]
*[[Bulgaria]]
*[[Cyprus]]
*[[Czech Republic]]
*[[Denmark]]
*[[Estonia]]
*[[Finland]]
*[[France]]
*[[Germany]]
*[[Greece]]
*[[Hungary]]
*[[Ireland]]
*[[Italy]]
*[[Latvia]]
*[[Lithuania]]
*[[Luxembourg]]
*[[Malta]]
*[[Netherlands]]
*[[Poland]]
*[[Portugal]]
*[[Romania]]
*[[Slovakia]]
*[[Slovenia]]
*[[Spain]]
*[[Sweden]]
*[[United Kingdom]]

==References==
<References/>

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/54126.htm]}}

[[Category:Europe]]
[[category:politics]]

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-04-05T17:30:24Z

Europeanunion: Thanks

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|>> Sep '07]] [[/Oct07|>> Oct '07]] [[/Nov07|>> Nov '07]] [[/Dec07|>> Dec '07]] [[/Jan08|>>Jan '08]]

== Superb Blocks and Unblocks ==

Superb blocks and unblocks last night!!! Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. It's a pity people like that feel the need to do what they do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:27, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Bolding terms ==

HelpJazz, feel free to ask others, but I think the bolding of the key word in the entry is effective, as in [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:I thought you were only supposed to bold it the first time, but if you like bolding it every time then I won't change any others. The manual of style doesn't really indicated either way. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:: The Manual of Style says to bold the first use. It doesn't explicitly say to ''not'' bold other uses, but that is the implication. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Re ==

Oh come on, you know libertarian does not equal liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:''I'' do, very much so. It's a rather large pet peeve of mine, when people confuse the two. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Warning ==

Sarcasm in comments to edits will result in the blocking of an account, for obvious reasons. This is a high quality site and it will remain that way. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I'm sorry. I was a little offended when you called me a liberal (twice), intimated that I wasn't smart enough to understand what you were writing, and then suggested that my claims of misunderstanding weren't credible.

:I probably should have held back the sarcasm but I've been sick lately (I slept for almost 30 straight hours Tues/Weds and had a high fever most of the time) and apparently don't have the restraint I usually do. I'll be going to bed soon; hopefully I'll be able to sleep off some more of this sickness and the grumpiness which comes with it. Good night. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:PS: Hopefully I'll get better by spring break; I'll have loads of free time for editing, and a lot of backed up class notes to convert to articles!

==I don't mean to be nosy==
Do you mind if I ask what school you go to? I know someone taking [[chemical engineering]] at Drexel, and it just sparked my interest when I saw you had the same major.--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 20:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I go to [[Bucknell University]]. The logo's also on my user page :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:36, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==I can never get my head around it==

Why do people like you contribute here? I mean, people like you are honest, hardworking reliable persons who genuinely want to help out. But this place is little more than a hate site aimed at Liberals and Gays. Their Liberals and Homosexuality articles are the laughing stock of the Blogosphere. I'm a Moderately Conservative Blogger (I back mc Cain) and these ultra's make the rest of us look bad. Decent people like yourself are only an accessory to the broader betrayal of conservative principles, which these guys seem to parody every day with articles like [[Liberals and friendship]] or [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] or [[Gay Bomb]]. Its absolutely amazing. [[User:McCain08|McCain08]] 13:29, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not really sure how to take that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:59, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe he doesn't fixate on only a few articles and views the project as a whole. HelpJazz has been an invaluable contributor and doesn't feel he has to but heads on every small point he may not agree with. We can all find things we may not like, but there is always a great deal of improvement that can be made in other areas. To reduce our site to a few offending articles and ignore the rest is petty and is hardly something that a conservative blogger would do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:25, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::I ''do'' know how to take that! Thanks Learn together :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:53, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Learn Together,

:I'm just interested to know what you would consider to be an alternative article I could assess as being trustworthy and encyclopedic? I've hit random page 10 times and I've got, [[Dirge]], [[Decency]], [[Statute of Anne]], [[Lemon test]], [[African Americans]], [[Jonah]], [[Easter]], [[Canadian deuterium uranium reactor]], [[Ocarina]], [[Brisbane]]. Most of them articles are very short, with only the African Americans article standing out but even that is puny by Wikipedia standards. This place, as you like to believe is not interested in developing these run of the mill, largely unpolitical articles. It is obsessed by using Liberals as a catchphrase at every turn. Your right, the majority of articles here are apolitical. But the issue is not how many slander and deface homosexuals and Liberals, but the mere presence of a derogatory and (what seems to me) parody article demeans the entire site and its mind baffling how even minded people could even consider using the site. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:22, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

McCain08's thesis boils down to the crazy idea that by opposing evil, we are betraying goodness. That hearkens back to the heresy that when Jesus said, "Judge not," he meant that Christians should never evaluate any doctrine or deed to whether it is good or bad. Actually, what he meant is to avoid [[hypocrisy]], which is "judging" without applying the standard of judgment to one's own self. This is the error that led to the downfall of TV preacher [[Jimmy Swaggart]] and NY governor [[Eliot Spitzer]].

In fact, it is liberals rather than conservatives who are guilty of this error. They constantly use [[double standard]] judgments, notably giving communists and dictators a pass - literally letting them get away with murder - while magnifying some relatively minor American crimes.

McCain08's comments appear hypocritical or simply pro-liberal when he accuses us of "slandering and defacing" homosexuals. Actually our [[Homosexuality]] article is factual and well deserves its top ten status in the blogosphere. It is rather the liberal media who slander Christians and Jews for standing up to the [[gay rights movement]]. It is rather liberal politicians who have made preaching the righteousness of the Bible a crime in some countries, and liberal administrations who have banned such preaching at many American universities.

Goodness must be trustworthy. To merit the world's trust, good people must expose evil - not only in others, of course (see [[hypocrisy]]), but all around. Confession is good for the soul! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:34, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Standing up to the gay rights movement? What are you standing up for? Really, put down Ann Coulter for a second and think for yourself.

Christ asks us not to look at the speck in our brothers eye when we haven't taken care of the plank in our own. This entire place is preachy, hypocritical and incredibly mean. Jesus would be weeping if he saw what his so called flock have produced.

Standing up to evil? Liberals are therefore evil? Homosexuals are therefore evil? And Liberals giving dictatorships a free pass... I'm sorry, where are you getting this nonsense? What is it that Bush said while campaigning in 2000 - 'I don't like going into another country and telling them how to do things our way' This was of course a response to the interventionist Gore, who advocated going into countries swarmed by civil strife. Clinton intervened in many countries (Though not enough in Rwanda) Read a book, ignoramus. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:55, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:"[[Think for yourself]]" is a [[liberal code word]] for "reject wisdom merely because it comes from another person". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:59, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

And he ignores the rest... Typical tactic, ignore what someone else says, create new saying and somehow fit Liberal into every second sentance. Helpjazz, how can you continue to work with these people? [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 11:25, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I didn't come here to argue or change minds. When I do interact with people, I do so in a kind and calm manner, instead of attacking that in which someone else believes. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:49, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==Carter's mouth==

HJ, thanks for the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Negotiating_with_terrorists&diff=next&oldid=408189 permalink]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

IS there a place I can ask the community as a whole something?--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 17:50, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not exactly. For general things you might try [[talk:Main Page]], or for a specific issue you might want to try a related debate or article. There isn't really an announcement board, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have done so and I would like you to direct as many people as possible to it cause I need opinions. I would like you to comment as well. [[Talk:No Mercy (2007)|Here you go]].--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 18:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== Complaint, but then ... ==

HelpJazz, you complained about a lack of citations for [[abortion deceit]], but then did not help me fill in the citations. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
:It wasn't a complaint as much as a comment. I've been in and out all day, since I'm on a school trip, and haven't had a lot of time to search. I'm generally not good at finding cites for those sorts of claims anyway :-/ I'll see if I can dig anything up now that I'm back for the night..
:In general, I find it best if the person who put in the claim puts in his own cites. You obviously know more about it and better know where to find cites, whereas I would be starting from scratch. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

Thanks for pointing that out. I assumed he had because somebody had already removed him from the template itself. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:41, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh I didn't even notice that he was removed from the template. I think he's more or less given up so it's an easy mistake to make. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Hello! ==

Thanks for this:
PS: while "liberal" may mean "moderate" across the sea, "-4.00/-7.18" well... isn't ;-)
Quite true, and nicely phrased =)
I was thinking of changing some of that anyway, but it was night-time here. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:38, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, well, the two-axis scale is something in which I'm pretty proficient :) I really like your userboxes, by the way. And I actually agree with a lot of them! (I don't know my exact score off the top of my head, but I'm somehere in the bottom right quadrant on political compass). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:30, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== SofaZebra ==
Thank you thank you thank you.
Your's sincerely, [[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:43, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==[[Geology]]==

Help? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:11, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:I'm afraid I'm not sure what I can do. I know very little about geography (Christian or otherwise) and Philip's been studying creation science longer than I've been alive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::Quite frankly there are statements in that article which make Conservapedia a laughing stock. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I didn't really read it. I'll give it a once-over and let you know what I think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:57, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I unprotected the article, and a quick glance shows nothing strange. I'd like Will to be more specific. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== "Libertarian" ==

Just face it, you are a conservative. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:19, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:As much as this destroys my street cred to say so, I differ in one essential area: I don't think that my conservatism should be pushed onto others through the coercive force of the government. If nothing else, you've got to admit that I at least have the lingo. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Ouch. You so have *zero* cred now. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Yeah. Can't get a street loan anymore :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Admit it Jazz, you is YEC. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Nope, just open minded and respectful of other people's beliefs :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:26, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for helping me find out how to put in a signature. I appreciate it! {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

==Multi-use refs==

Please help me fix the refs in [[Little Black Sambo]]. One more good example, and I think I can learn to start doing it myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:I think I got it. I couldn't change the first two refs, because they inlcuded text as well as the website, but I changed the rest for you. Basically one of your references (usually the first one, but it doesn't actually have to be the first) should be in the form:
::<nowiki><ref</nowiki> name="'''name'''">'''Reference info'''</ref>
:And all the other references just need to say
::<nowiki><ref</nowiki> name="'''name'''" />
:I always forget the extra "/" in the secondary refs. Oh and if you don't spell it right, it won't work ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:35, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Night-Editing ==

The feedback has been very positive about your efforts, HelpJazz. I hope to be able to promote you to night-editing by the end of the weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Thank you so much Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to your decision. 23:01, 2 April 2008 (EDT){{unsigned|HelpJazz}}

Congratulations HelpJazz on your achievement. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 17:46, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

I'd like to thank you for being helpful and accommodating in the time since I joined; you have not been angry, accusatory or unkind at all. I do wish people could be more civil, recognise that more than one opinion can be legitimate, and at least try to prepare to change one's mind. I am also sorry that an agreement could not be formed: I know that it was unlikely on such an almost cherished article, but my views have been stated, and could still be acted upon (particularly about moving said phrase). [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 13:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2008-04-05T15:23:16Z

Europeanunion: /* Reverts */ I don't think that this is getting anywhere

Pound

2008-04-05T11:48:21Z

Europeanunion: sterling

''Perhaps you were looking for the [[pounds|units of measurement for weight]]?''

The '''pound''' is a unit of currency used by several countries most notably the [[United Kingdom]] where it is known officially as the ''pound sterling''.

The symbol of the pound is £.

In the UK, the pound is divided into one hundred pence (singular: ''penny''). Before decimalisation in 1971, the pound was divided into twenty shillings, which were themselves divided into twelve pence. The were also half pennies (ha'pennies, pronounced ''hay-p'nee'') and quarter pennies, the latter known as ''farthings''.

Prices expressed in pounds, shillings, and pence were typically written in the form, for example, £2 6s 4d, which was two pounds, six shillings, and fourpence; £5.0.0 which was five pounds and no shillings; 16/9, which was sixteen shillings and ninepence; and 10/-, which was ten shillings and no pence.

The pound is by far the oldest currency in the world still in existence, having been popularised by King [[Offa]] of [[Mercia]], ruler of [[England]], around the year 790 AD. The term 'pound' referred to the fact that it was a pound in weight of Sterling silver. Since that time the pound has remained remarkably stable, but over the centuries a certain amount of inflation has occurred, to the effect that a pound in 790 AD would have the buying power of about 38 pounds today. This compares very favourably with other world currencies such as the [[German Mark]] which underwent billion-fold inflation in a space of just a few years in the 1920s and had to be scrapped altogether.

Today, the pound remains the third most important currency in the world in terms of international reserves, after the [[Dollar (U.S.)|U.S. Dollar]] and the [[Euro]], and ahead of the [[Yen]].

As at the end of 2006, the Pound Sterling was worth around US$2.

Some countries in the former [[British Empire]] and now the [[Commonwealth of Nations]] used the pound and a few adopted it as their own currency upon independence, including [[Australia]] and [[New Zealand]]. However, these two countries converted to the Australian dollar and the New Zealand dollar in the 1960s.

Other countries such as the Lebanon, Egypt and Cyprus also use the pound but this is an English translation of the local word from Arabic, French, Italian or Greek and has no historical connection to the British pound sterling. The Italian ''lira'', a former currency before the introduction of the Euro, also means pound and used a similar system of weight of silver equivalence.

[[Category:Currency]]

Miles per gallon

2008-04-05T11:43:41Z

Europeanunion: added equivalency in other systems

Miles per gallon (MPG) is a measure of vehicle fuel efficiency.

Miles per gallon or MPG represents "Fleet Miles per Gallon." For each subgroup or "table cell," MPG is computed as the ratio of the total number of miles traveled by all vehicles in the subgroup to the total number of gallons consumed. MPGs are assigned to each vehicle using the [[EPA]] certification files and adjusted for on-road driving.

One mile per gallon is approximately equal to 0.425 [[kilometer]]s per [[liter]].

[[category:energy]]

Gun control

2008-04-05T11:36:55Z

Europeanunion: /* Gun control outside the USA */ removed ]

[[Image:Gun.jpg|right]]
'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of the mostly-defensive weapon of gun and often involve the recall of guns by law-abiding citizens. Gun control is unique among social programs in increasing the emotional and physical dependency of ''all'' voters on government. It is often promoted by [[liberal]]s.

Gun control is a denial by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]].<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns leads to less crime.<ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref> Because gun control increases the dependence of voters on government, its political effect is to shift the electorate leftward and its primary supporters are leftists.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In [[England]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece]</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by at least a factor of 100 to 1, and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>
There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. In [[Britain]], for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997<ref>As in Australia, gun control passed in [[Britain]] based on a highly publicized but isolated and statistically insignificant act of violence.</ref> directly resulted in the [[Labour Party]] winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the [[Labour Party]] has remained in power in [[Britain]] for over a decade. In [[Australia]],the passage of gun control in 1996 and its expansion in 2002 has led to a complete takeover of all nine federal, state and territory legislatures by the Labor Party, the first time a single party has ever achieved this in Australian history.<ref>The Sydney Morning Herald - [http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/either-way-its-history-in-the-making/2007/11/23/1195753310949.html Either way, it's history in the making]</ref><ref>ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) - [http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/ 2007 Federal Election]</ref> Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>[http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15)</ref>

== Trends ==

After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Brady Bill (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Gun control outside the USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]].

Gun control supporters also cite [[Japan]], where firearms are illegal and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]].<ref name="EU">http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/29/europe/union.php EU legislators push tougher gun controls</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States".<ref name="EU" /> Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where all replicas are outlawed.<ref name="EU" />

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolph Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]

==References==

<references/>
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Gun control

2008-04-05T11:36:12Z

Europeanunion: /* Gun control outside the USA */ added european info, with reference

[[Image:Gun.jpg|right]]
'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of the mostly-defensive weapon of gun and often involve the recall of guns by law-abiding citizens. Gun control is unique among social programs in increasing the emotional and physical dependency of ''all'' voters on government. It is often promoted by [[liberal]]s.

Gun control is a denial by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]].<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns leads to less crime.<ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref> Because gun control increases the dependence of voters on government, its political effect is to shift the electorate leftward and its primary supporters are leftists.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In [[England]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece]</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by at least a factor of 100 to 1, and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>
There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. In [[Britain]], for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997<ref>As in Australia, gun control passed in [[Britain]] based on a highly publicized but isolated and statistically insignificant act of violence.</ref> directly resulted in the [[Labour Party]] winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the [[Labour Party]] has remained in power in [[Britain]] for over a decade. In [[Australia]],the passage of gun control in 1996 and its expansion in 2002 has led to a complete takeover of all nine federal, state and territory legislatures by the Labor Party, the first time a single party has ever achieved this in Australian history.<ref>The Sydney Morning Herald - [http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/either-way-its-history-in-the-making/2007/11/23/1195753310949.html Either way, it's history in the making]</ref><ref>ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) - [http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/ 2007 Federal Election]</ref> Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>[http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15)</ref>

== Trends ==

After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Brady Bill (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Gun control outside the USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]].

Gun control supporters also cite [[Japan]], where firearms are illegal and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]].<ref name="EU">http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/29/europe/union.php EU legislators push tougher gun controls]</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States".<ref name="EU" /> Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where all replicas are outlawed.<ref name="EU" />

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolph Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]

==References==

<references/>
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

User:Europeanunion

2008-04-05T11:22:52Z

Europeanunion: added aim

{{userboxtop}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User Political Compass|-4.00|-7.18}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=GW |info=This user thinks that combating global warming has many good effects, regardless of whether GW is anthropogenic or not.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=Why? |info=This user thinks that nationalism is outdated.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= PR|info=This user supports proportioanl representation.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= SI|info=This user gladly uses the logical [[metric system]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= NV|info=This user believes in the power of non-violence and peace.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Hi!|info=This user believes that international migration is largely beneficial.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= CP|info=This user thinks that the [[death penalty]] should never be used.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= LGBT|info=This user is straight, and supports [[gay marriage]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Mercy|info=This user supports [[euthanasia]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Choice|info=This user supports [[abortion]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds discrimination illogical.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds religious conversion a violation of human rights.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sun|info=This user finds climatology really interesting.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sci|info=This user supports the evidence for each scientific paradigm, until it is proved wrong.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Bang|info=This user believes that the Universe began with a [[Big Bang]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Evo|info=This user thinks that [[evolution]] explains the origin of species.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=red |border-s=2 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#900 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id= But!|info=This user thinks that those who don't agree with me have the right to express it on Conservapedia.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==Myself==
[[Image:567rugyhj.png|thumb|left|The European Flag]]
Hello! I am a [[European]] citizen – I live in the [[European Union]], and pragmatically support its existence and aims. For now (at least until there are options that better represent my – ever-changing – ideology), I largely support the [[Liberal Democrats|Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe]]: I am a social liberal, but not neo-liberal. I am an [[agnostic]] (honestly believing that we can never be certain, though I am not certain on that either!), but I believe that the existence of god(s) is almost certainly [[atheism|extremely unlikely]], to the extent that it is acceptable to ignore that possibility for all reasonable purposes. I am studying for a PhD in [[mathematical]] [[physics]], and like many Europeans, I am an [[environmentalist]].

I will mainly edit articles that I am interested in – such as those linked above, and add sections about Europe to articles with a worldwide scope (such as in geography, politics, culture et cetera). Hope you all have fun editing articles, I most certainly will have fun reading and adding to them!

==The nature of thought==
I know that, in all situations in life, there are multitudes of differing opinions. Often, that of those that disagree is considered 'stupid', 'deluded', 'obviously wrong', et cetera; if considered at all. Even worse are accusations of hypocrisy or bias, which suffer from such themselves – as all opinion inevitably does by definition. Some, realising this, opt to distance themselves from that which they consider suffers from such bias to the greatest detriment to their argument; only forwarding or legitimising that which substantiates their cause.

This disregard for entire swathes of research not only lends no credence to their views, but also makes them less likely to be the most accurate: there is so much to be gained by considering that one may be wrong, or at least that those that have been disregarded may not always be automatically wrong. This is also true of generalisation, stereotyping and prejudice – just because some that have a certain opinion engage in hypocrisy, delusion, selective referencing and illogicality, does not mean that they are wrong, does not mean that those with differing stances do not engage in similar acts, and certainly does not mean that all with similar opinions do also.

This is inevitably the case in some articles on Conservapedia: including [[Liberal bias]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. However, I do not condone their removal, or changing them in any way, or demand creation of articles such as [[Conservative hypocrisy]] on this domain – we all have a right to purchase a domain and allow who we choose to contribute their views, and which of those views to keep and which to remove; once this is in place, any attempt by others to censor it are a violation of the universal freedom of speech. I merely hope that readers of such articles will not automatically consider them representative, and I hope that the 'powers that be' will not always consider [[Conservative hypocrisy]] an invalid article or a non-existent act.

It must be noted that although some say Wikipedia may be six-times more liberal than the average United States citizen (I assume this is inferred from polls on issues which correlate with such beliefs), the average European is probably as liberal as Wikipedia, and six-times more liberal than Conservapedia (basing this assumption on polls like the [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm Eurobarometer]). This is think is where the justification for Conservapedia lies: not as a protest to the liberally-biased Wikipedia, but as an American alternative to what is a more foreign viewpoint.

I also know that the actions described above are entirely natural; they are part of what thought is – if a human does not believe that their opinions are right, then they do not have opinions. I know that it is extremely hard to overcome this seemingly logical process: to look at what others have to say, without prejudice to its validity, and to risk diluting one's own dearly held values in the search for truth. I don't expect that those that I debate with to always do this – I don't expect myself to – but I will always remember that it is possible, sometimes even likely, that I am wrong and others are right, and I hope that others can at least try to also. If some do not, then it will not alter my view of their arguments, or any others which are similar, but I will be more careful when taking them at face value. I ask for you to do the same to me and those who share my views.

I will most likely disagree with many other users. Do not disregard my arguments – I will not yours. But, more importantly, do not consider me any different to you. I am not.

Capital punishment

2008-04-05T10:55:37Z

Europeanunion: /* In the world today */ added ref from US section

'''Capital Punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as capital crimes, and tend to be grave crimes against persons (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]], [[rape]] or [[treason]]).

== In the world today ==
Of the main developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] use formalized capital punishment, though many developed countries give law enforcement greater authority to kill than allowed by the [[United States]]. For emerging countries, [[China]] uses the death penalty and in the non-developed world it is practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many others.<ref name="EU">EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

According to officially released governmental figures, the [[liberal]] [[human rights]] organization [[Amnesty International]] estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000. [[Human Rights Watch]], another prominent liberal organization, does not have any recent figures.

Based on 2004 figures, China is the world leader in total number of executions with an estimated 3,400. Following China is Iran with 159 and Vietnam with an estimated 64 executions. The United States executed the 5th greatest number of people in the world with a total of 52. <ref>''The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2008 Edition'' 2007, p. 99. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1846680908</ref>

=== United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis; twelve states' laws do not allow for executions at all. Capital punishment is also used by the federal government and the military.

[[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws, and all three essentially "volunteered" by dropping their appeals. In [[Texas]], one man has been on death row for 31 years.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>
Appeals and stays of execution can create a backlog on death rows in many states.

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

Some studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterrence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref> However - other studies have shown as a whole, "death-penalty states" typically have higher murder rates than states that have outlawed capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT|format=HTML|work=Death Penalty Information Center|language=English|title=Deterrence|accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref>

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Mississippi]], and [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

===Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canadian civilian courts since 1976.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

===Saudi Arabia===
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword. As of November 25, 2007, Saudi Arabia has beheaded 136 people, 38 people in 2006 and 83 people in 2005. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312768,00.html Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007], Associated Press, [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]], November 25, 2007</ref>

===European Union===
The death penalty has been abolished in all 27 [[European Union]] member states, and 47 out of the 50 countries in [[Europe]] (only [[Belarus]] and [[Kazakhstan]] still practise it, and [[Russia]] has had an effective moratorium since 1996).<ref>http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2007/en/ACT500012007en.html Document - List of abolitionist and retentionist countries (1 January 2007)</ref> The EU has long been against capital punishment, and campaigns for its abolition worldwide. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, bans execution in all member states, and abolition is a condition of acceding to the EU.<ref name="EU" /> EU law also bans detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11, but see [[Genesis]] 19:33, 19:35, 4:17)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)
# Rebellious Sons ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

Capital punishment

2008-04-05T10:54:16Z

Europeanunion: /* In the world today */ european section

'''Capital Punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as capital crimes, and tend to be grave crimes against persons (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]], [[rape]] or [[treason]]).

== In the world today ==
Of the main developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] use formalized capital punishment, though many developed countries give law enforcement greater authority to kill than allowed by the [[United States]]. For emerging countries, [[China]] uses the death penalty and in the non-developed world it is practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many others.<ref>EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

According to officially released governmental figures, the [[liberal]] [[human rights]] organization [[Amnesty International]] estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000. [[Human Rights Watch]], another prominent liberal organization, does not have any recent figures.

Based on 2004 figures, China is the world leader in total number of executions with an estimated 3,400. Following China is Iran with 159 and Vietnam with an estimated 64 executions. The United States executed the 5th greatest number of people in the world with a total of 52. <ref>''The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2008 Edition'' 2007, p. 99. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1846680908</ref>

=== United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis; twelve states' laws do not allow for executions at all. Capital punishment is also used by the federal government and the military.

[[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws, and all three essentially "volunteered" by dropping their appeals. In [[Texas]], one man has been on death row for 31 years.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>
Appeals and stays of execution can create a backlog on death rows in many states.

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

Some studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterrence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref> However - other studies have shown as a whole, "death-penalty states" typically have higher murder rates than states that have outlawed capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT|format=HTML|work=Death Penalty Information Center|language=English|title=Deterrence|accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref>

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Mississippi]], and [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

===Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canadian civilian courts since 1976.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

===Saudi Arabia===
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword. As of November 25, 2007, Saudi Arabia has beheaded 136 people, 38 people in 2006 and 83 people in 2005. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312768,00.html Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007], Associated Press, [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]], November 25, 2007</ref>

===European Union===
The death penalty has been abolished in all 27 [[European Union]] member states, and 47 out of the 50 countries in [[Europe]] (only [[Belarus]] and [[Kazakhstan]] still practise it, and [[Russia]] has had an effective moratorium since 1996).<ref>http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2007/en/ACT500012007en.html Document - List of abolitionist and retentionist countries (1 January 2007)</ref> The EU has long been against capital punishment, and campaigns for its abolition worldwide. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, bans execution in all member states, and abolition is a condition of acceding to the EU. EU law also bans detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11, but see [[Genesis]] 19:33, 19:35, 4:17)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)
# Rebellious Sons ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

Talk:Liberal

2008-04-05T10:30:48Z

Europeanunion: /* Reverts */ reality check

Talk:Liberal

2008-04-04T18:09:08Z

Europeanunion: /* Reverts */ spose =)

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Request ==

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No, Oxford granted Dawkins his professorship in 1996. The link I provided above demonstrates this. The 'tempest' (I would actually call it more a 'storm in a teacup') started in 2007, when a certain person here tried to throw doubt on Dawkins' academic credentials in what can only be described, quite frankly, as a blatent ad hominem attack. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you cerraainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is [[Logical_fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

May I make a suggestion? Keep the disputed sentence, but move it over to [[liberal style]]. It fits in very nicely over there.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, it's definitely more an example of liberal style than it is a political position, as all the rest of the items on the list are. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
::Pragmatically, I support such a move also; despite mine and others' misgivings about its legitimacy, at least it is more appropriate there. --[[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 14:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DrCB

2008-04-04T09:35:04Z

Europeanunion: thanks

{{Welcome}} --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 01:27, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the advice. I realised pretty soon that issue would not get anywhere; and have seen others on similar articles, but have already decided against pushing it. I will take your advice and edit some articles that appeal to me, rather than the powers that be. Much luck and happiness, [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 05:35, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

User:Europeanunion

2008-04-03T20:12:40Z

Europeanunion: clarified

{{userboxtop}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User Political Compass|-4.00|-7.18}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=GW |info=This user thinks that combating global warming has many good effects, regardless of whether GW is anthropogenic or not.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=Why? |info=This user thinks that nationalism is outdated.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= PR|info=This user supports proportioanl representation.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= SI|info=This user gladly uses the logical [[metric system]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= NV|info=This user believes in the power of non-violence and peace.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Hi!|info=This user believes that international migration is largely beneficial.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= CP|info=This user thinks that the [[death penalty]] should never be used.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= LGBT|info=This user is straight, and supports [[gay marriage]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Mercy|info=This user supports [[euthanasia]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Choice|info=This user supports [[abortion]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds discrimination illogical.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Why?|info=This user finds religious conversion a violation of human rights.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sun|info=This user finds climatology really interesting.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Sci|info=This user supports the evidence for each scientific paradigm, until it is proved wrong.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Bang|info=This user believes that the Universe began with a [[Big Bang]].}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#0af |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id= Evo|info=This user thinks that [[evolution]] explains the origin of species.}}
{{Userbox |border-c=red |border-s=2 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#900 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id= But!|info=This user thinks that those who don't agree with me have the right to express it on Conservapedia.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==Myself==
[[Image:567rugyhj.png|thumb|left|The European Flag]]
Hello! I am a [[European]] citizen – I live in the [[European Union]], and pragmatically support its existence and aims. For now (at least until there are options that better represent my – ever-changing – ideology), I largely support the [[Liberal Democrats|Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe]]: I am a social liberal, but not neo-liberal. I am an [[agnostic]] (honestly believing that we can never be certain, though I am not certain on that either!), but I believe that the existence of god(s) is almost certainly [[atheism|extremely unlikely]], to the extent that it is acceptable to ignore that possibility for all reasonable purposes. I am studying for a PhD in [[mathematical]] [[physics]], and like many Europeans, I am an [[environmentalist]]. I will mainly edit articles that I am interested in – such as those linked above. Hope you all have fun editing articles, I most certainly will have fun reading them!

==The nature of thought==
I know that, in all situations in life, there are multitudes of differing opinions. Often, that of those that disagree is considered 'stupid', 'deluded', 'obviously wrong', et cetera; if considered at all. Even worse are accusations of hypocrisy or bias, which suffer from such themselves – as all opinion inevitably does by definition. Some, realising this, opt to distance themselves from that which they consider suffers from such bias to the greatest detriment to their argument; only forwarding or legitimising that which substantiates their cause.

This disregard for entire swathes of research not only lends no credence to their views, but also makes them less likely to be the most accurate: there is so much to be gained by considering that one may be wrong, or at least that those that have been disregarded may not always be automatically wrong. This is also true of generalisation, stereotyping and prejudice – just because some that have a certain opinion engage in hypocrisy, delusion, selective referencing and illogicality, does not mean that they are wrong, does not mean that those with differing stances do not engage in similar acts, and certainly does not mean that all with similar opinions do also.

This is inevitably the case in some articles on Conservapedia: including [[Liberal bias]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. However, I do not condone their removal, or changing them in any way, or demand creation of articles such as [[Conservative hypocrisy]] on this domain – we all have a right to purchase a domain and allow who we choose to contribute their views, and which of those views to keep and which to remove; once this is in place, any attempt by others to censor it are a violation of the universal freedom of speech. I merely hope that readers of such articles will not automatically consider them representative, and I hope that the 'powers that be' will not always consider [[Conservative hypocrisy]] an invalid article or a non-existent act.

It must be noted that although some say Wikipedia may be six-times more liberal than the average United States citizen (I assume this is inferred from polls on issues which correlate with such beliefs), the average European is probably as liberal as Wikipedia, and six-times more liberal than Conservapedia (basing this assumption on polls like the [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm Eurobarometer]). This is think is where the justification for Conservapedia lies: not as a protest to the liberally-biased Wikipedia, but as an American alternative to what is a more foreign viewpoint.

I also know that the actions described above are entirely natural; they are part of what thought is – if a human does not believe that their opinions are right, then they do not have opinions. I know that it is extremely hard to overcome this seemingly logical process: to look at what others have to say, without prejudice to its validity, and to risk diluting one's own dearly held values in the search for truth. I don't expect that those that I debate with to always do this – I don't expect myself to – but I will always remember that it is possible, sometimes even likely, that I am wrong and others are right, and I hope that others can at least try to also. If some do not, then it will not alter my view of their arguments, or any others which are similar, but I will be more careful when taking them at face value. I ask for you to do the same to me and those who share my views.

I will most likely disagree with many other users. Do not disregard my arguments – I will not yours. But, more importantly, do not consider me any different to you. I am not.

Homosexuality laws

2008-04-03T13:43:22Z

Europeanunion: added info on laws, marriage, opinion and variation in the EU

The world's '''homosexuality laws''' are currently diverse regarding homosexuality. For example, while the [[Netherlands]] recognizes same-sex marriages, under [[Saudi Arabia]]n law a person might face the death penalty in regards to homosexuality although other penalties may be used in lieu of the death penalty.<ref>[http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=156&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport Media Cry ‘Marriage’ As Homosexual Couples Tie the Knot in Germany ]</ref><ref>[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm Homosexuality and Islam]</ref>

==In the United States==
[[Image:Antonin.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Antonin Scalia]]]]
In regards to [[Homosexualty and American Law|Homosexuality and American Law]], treatment of homosexuals by the law has increasingly suggested that discrimination based on homosexuality employs a "[[suspect classification]]" subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]" under modern [[Fourteenth Amendment]] [[jurisprudence]], with judges and scholars employing language to equate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with already forbidden [[racial discrimination]] practices.<ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving Lawrence," available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=512662</ref> Where federal law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals remains scant, the several states have more than taken up the burden, and many have made sexual-orientation based discrimination actionable at law and equity.<ref>See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. Code, s 8-107</ref> Perhaps this can be seen as an example of the robustness of the [[United States]]' [[federal system]], as the states are acting just as Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] and [[Justice Brandeis]] expressed hope that they would, as "laboratories" of experimentation on the border of developed federal law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al, "Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials," Fifth Edition.</ref>

The [[Supreme Court]] recently overturned a [[Texas]] law banning sodomy. The majority opinion, written by [[Justice Kennedy]], suggests that all forms of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, are now subject to [[rational basis review]], and will be frowned upon unless a legitimate state interest in the discrimination is expressed. Justice Kennedy also held that the need to legislate morals by the states' [[police power]] is no longer a legitimate state interest, absent specific physical harms being proven. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote a blistering dissent, characterizing the opinion as including phrases which will become the "dicta that ate the [[Rule of Law|rule of law]]."<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>

==In the European Union==
[[Image:European Union.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|Laws in EU member states vary, but in general are less anti-gay than in most countries.]]
Laws protecting the rights of homosexuals in the [[European Union]] are more extensive than in the United States. All 27 member states have decriminalised homosexual acts, and have laws against anti-gay discrimination: seven ban some types of discrimination, four ban most types, and sixteen ban all discrimination based on sexuality. Twenty-four members (all except [[Cyprus]], [[Greece]] and [[Latvia]]) allow openly gay individuals to serve in the military. [[Belgium]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Spain]] recognise [[same-sex marriage]] ([[Sweden]] will in 2009), ten recognise [[same-sex unions]], and two recognise unregistered cohabitation. The issue is under consideration in [[Greece]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], [[Italy]] and [[Romania]], Cyprus does not recognise any form of union, and [[Latvia]], [[Lithuania]] and [[Poland]] have a constitutional ban.

Same-sex couples can legally adopt any child in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the [[United Kingdom]], and can adopt the children of one of the partners in [[Germany]] and [[Denmark]]. In Ireland, both partners can foster children, but only one can adopt, and in [[France]], a single homosexual person can adopt. The other eighteen member states do not allow same-sex couples to adopt any child. Forty-four percent of EU citizens agreed that same-sex marriages should be legal across the EU; more than half agreed in Belgium, the [[Czech Republic]], Denmark, Germany, [[Luxembourg]], the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden; and less than 15% agreed in [[Bulgaria]], Cyprus, Greece, Latvia and Romania.<ref>[http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14203 Eight EU Countries Back Same-Sex Marriage]</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Law]]

Anthropogenic global warming theory

2008-04-02T16:31:19Z

Europeanunion: cleanup, and changed link that redirected back here

'''Anthropogenic global warming''' is any increase in global average air temperature caused by human activities.

An assessment panel created by the [[United Nations]] is 90% sure that most [[global warming]] is caused by human beings.

The idea that human activities such as the combustion of [[fossil fuels]] can significantly warm the earth's atmosphere is called the [[runaway greenhouse effect]].

==Relation to current climate change==

The '''anthropogenic global warming theory''' is one of several explanations for the slight warming of the earth's [[atmosphere]] recorded since the middle of the 19th or 20th centuries.

The theory enjoys broad based political support from Liberals, Greens and the US [[Democratic Party]], and theory supporters frequently assert the existence of a "[[scientific consensus]]" favoring their viewpoint (see [[Politics of global warming]]).

==Assessment of the theories==

President Bush's primary science advisor, Dr. John H. Marburger, supports anthropogenic global warming.<ref>BBC: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm "Bush aide says warming man-made"]</ref> A number of key Republicans support global warming as well.

[[category:earth science]]
[[category:ecology]]

==Scientific evidence==

See:
*[[Global warming controversy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:earth science]]

Talk:Liberal

2008-04-02T14:44:32Z

Europeanunion: /* Reverts */ thanks

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Request ==

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you cerraainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is [[Logical_fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2008-04-02T13:29:53Z

Europeanunion: /* Reverts */ reply to ed

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Request ==

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you cerraainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2008-04-02T13:14:21Z

Europeanunion: /* Reverts */ reply

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Request ==

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you cerraainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2008-04-02T11:34:03Z

Europeanunion: /* Edit war */ reply to TK

Talk:Liberal

2008-04-01T22:19:18Z

Europeanunion: /* Edit war */ reply as requested =)

Liberal

2008-04-01T19:55:22Z

Europeanunion: a believer in many of the following political positions: calling people professors is not a positional belief, and it is not something that one can assign to liberals any more than anyone else.

[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|350px|top|<center>A satirical conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]

A '''liberal''' can be a believer in many of the following political positions:

* A government with large spending on social programs, and high taxes to support such programs
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]] 
* Wanting men and women to have the same access to jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* Implimentation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching "comprehensive" sex-ed programs instead of [[abstinence]]-only programs.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted in a modern context, instead of how it was originally intended
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]

== Liberalism in North America today ==
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are often [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref>
*Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]
*[[Westboro Baptist Church]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==

* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Hollywood values]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[:Category:Liberal activists|Liberal activists]]
* [[Liberal arts]]
* [[Liberal Arts college]]
* [[Liberal Bias]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal deceit]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal denial]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hate speech]]
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Liberal ideology]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberalism and art]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Myths]]
* [[Liberal obfuscation]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal quotient]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Style|Liberal Style]]
* [[Liberal tools]]
* [[Liberal tricks]]
* [[Liberal values]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Professor values]]

==Further Information==

* [[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Euro

2008-04-01T18:04:28Z

Europeanunion: updated, more information and references, sections.

[[Image:Euro banknotes.png|right|thumb|Euro banknotes|300px]]
The '''Euro''' is the common [[currency]] in the Eurozone (a group of 15 [[European Union]] member states with a population of 320 million), five other states with formal agreements to use it, and four others without formal agreement. Use of the euro began in January 2002, and 12 nations switched their currency immediately to the euro. There was more than €610 billion in circulation in December 2006 (worth US$802 billion at the time), hence the euro has the highest value of cash in circulation in the world, having surpassed the U.S. dollar.<ref>{{cite web| last = Atkins| first = Ralph| title = Euro notes cash in to overtake dollar| publisher = Financial Times|date=2006-12-27| url = http://www.ft.com/cms/s/18338034-95ec-11db-9976-0000779e2340.html| accessdate = 2007-05-04}}</ref>

==Creation==
In January 1999 the exchange rates of countries that had passed the criteria (and were not exercising an opt-out) were fixed to the euro. The European Central Bank (ECB) came into being. Euro coins and notes were introduced to the general public on the 1st of January 2002 as legal tender, alongside national currencies. In March 1998, when the calculations in countries that had met the convergence criteria were finalised, eleven countries were admitted to join the European Monetary Union: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. In June 2000 Greece was admitted. Slovenia joined in 2007, and Malta and Cyprus joined in 2008.

==Criteria for adoption==
Countries within the European Union were able to join the Common Currency if they met four criteria (known as the 'convergence criteria'. These were: 
1. The budget deficit must be below 3% of GDP (the difference between government receipts and expenditures.) 
2. The total government debt must be below 60% of GDP. 
3. The country must have an inflation rate within 1.5% of the lowest 3 inflation rates of EU countries. 
4. Nominal Long-term interest rates must be within 2% of the interest rate of countries with the lowest 3 inflation rates. 

In addition to these criteria a member state's currency must fluctuate within the margins allowed. Countries were allowed to join the common currency if their budget deficit and total government debt were approaching the reference values at a 'satisfactory pace', but not actually on them.

==Non-participant members==
In the United Kingdom the currency is still the [[pound]], but there is pressure to convert to the euro that is used throughout Europe. The UK and [[Denmark]] are the only European Union member states with an 'opt-out' (allowing them to select not to join the common currency despite meeting the criteria). In addition to the four criteria of entry set out in the Maastricht Treaty the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid out 5 economic tests the United Kingdom must meet to join; at the last report it had met one, with three others dependant on the final condition which had not been met. Many conservatives in the UK ([[Tories]]) resist conversion to the European currency because a reliance on a common currency represents a loss in sovereignty and control. In particular, there is fear that joining the synchronised EU policy may result in sub-optimal interest rates in difficult periods.

==Value==
[[Image:626px-Euro coins version II.png|right|thumb|300px|Euro coins]]
Initially the value of the euro fell on the exchange markets, while many expected it to do the opposite. However it has strengthened in the years since, partly due to the falling value of the dollar. The ECB is charged with maintaining the inflation rate in the Eurozone between 0 and 2%.

By the end of 2006, after about five years of the euro, a French magazine Le Pèlerin reported that 52% of the French feel that the euro is a "bad thing", blaming it for price hikes and job losses. 71% of French [[blue-collar workers]] said that euro has hurt them personally. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/12/28/cneuro28.xml French hostility to euro begins to gather pace], The Telegraph, 27 December, 2006</ref>.

As of April 2008, the euro is worth approximately [[US]]$1.56 and GB£0.51.<ref>http://www.xe.com/</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Currency]]
[[Category:Europe]]

Euro

2008-04-01T17:48:49Z

Europeanunion: rm pointless sentence

[[Image:Euro banknotes.png|right|thumb|Euro banknotes|300px]]
The '''Euro''' is the common [[currency]] in the Eurozone (a group of 15 [[European Union]] states) today. Use of the euro began in January 2002, and 12 nations switched their currency immediately to the euro. Countries within the European Union were able to join the Common Currency if they met four criteria (known as the 'convergence criteria'. These were: 
1. The budget deficit must be below 3% of GDP (the difference between government receipts and expenditures.) 
2. The total government debt must be below 60% of GDP. 
3. The country must have an inflation rate within 1.5% of the lowest 3 inflation rates of EU countries. 
4. Nominal Long-term interest rates must be within 2% of the interest rate of countries with the lowest 3 inflation rates. 

In addition to these criteria a country must have 'normal' fluctuations of its currency. (That is, within the margins allowed.)
It is perhaps worth noting that countries were allowed to join the common currency if their budget deficit and total government debt were approaching the reference values at a 'satisfactory pace', not necessarily actually on them.
In January 1999 the exchange rates of countries that had passed the criteria (and were not exercising an opt-out) were fixed the the Euro. The European Central Bank (ECB) came into being. Euro coins and notes were introduced to the general public on the 1st of January 2002 as legal tender, alongside national currencies. Initially in March of 1998, when the calculations as to which countries had met the convergence criteria occurred, 11 countries, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain were admitted to join the European Monetary Union. In June of 2000 Greece was admitted. Slovenia joined in 2007, and Malta and Cyprus joined in 2008.

In the United Kingdom the currency is still the [[pound]], but there is pressure to convert to the euro that is used throughout Europe. As of 2007 the United Kingdom and [[Denmark]] are the only European Union member countries with an 'opt-out' (allowing them to select not to join the common currency despite meeting the criteria). In addition to the four criteria of entry set out in the Maastricht Treaty the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid out 5 economic tests the United Kingdom must meet to join. (At the last report it had met 1.) Many conservatives in the UK ([[Tories]]) resist conversion to the European currency because a reliance on a common currency represents a loss in sovereignty and control. In particular, there is fear of the UK becoming dependent on the fiscal policies of the larger combination of Germany, Italy, and France.
[[Image:626px-Euro coins version II.png|right|thumb|300px|Euro coins]]
Initially the value of the Euro fell on the exchange markets, while many expected it to do the opposite. However it has strengthened in recent times partly due to the falling value of the dollar. The ECB is charged with maintaining the inflation rate in the Eurozone between 0 and 2%.

By the end of 2006, after about five years of the euro, a French magazine Le Pèlerin reported that 52% of the French feel that the euro is a "bad thing", blaming it for price hikes and job losses. 71% of French [[blue-collar workers]] said that euro has hurt them personally. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/12/28/cneuro28.xml French hostility to euro begins to gather pace], The Telegraph, 27 December, 2006</ref>.

As of February 2008, the euro is worth approximately [[US]]$1.48 or GB£0.75.<ref>http://www.xe.com/</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Currency]]
[[Category:Europe]]

Liberal

2008-04-01T17:48:10Z

Europeanunion: that is not a political position in which one can believe. It is a hypocritical generalisation anyway.

European Union

2008-03-31T15:25:29Z

Europeanunion: /* The European Parliament */ mroe clarification

{{Country
|name =''European Union''
|map =European_Union.jpg
|flag =567rugyhj.png
|arms =
|capital = Brussels, Luxembourg, Strasbourg
|capital-raw =
|government =Sui generis supranationalism
|government-raw =
|language = 23 Official languages
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president = José Manuel Barroso (Commission) Hans-Gert Pöttering (Parliament)
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =4,324,782 km²(1,669,807 sq mi)
|pop =495,128,529 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$16,574 billion (2007 IMF)
|gdp-pc =$33,482 (2007 IMF)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =.eu
}}
The '''European Union (EU)''' is a legal, political and economic union of 27 [[European]] countries. It was formed in 1993 with the ratification of the [[Maastricht Treaty]], though its predecessor, the European Economic Community, was founded in 1957.

As a set of institutions, the EU has more powers over its member states and their citizens than other international bodies; many of its competencies are supranational (above the member states) rather than intergovernmental (between them). Despite having a legal personality and sovereignty in agreed areas, it is not regarded as a federation or state in its own right: rather, it stands somewhere between these two points. Fifteen member states use a common [[currency]], the [[euro]]; five other states formally agree to use it, and four others use it without formal agreement.

==Structure==

===The European Commission===
The role and responsibilities of the European Commission place it at the center of the EU's decision-making process. Acting as the EU's policy and executive engine, the Commission is composed of 27 Commissioners, one from each state, and is supported by a substantial staff located primarily in [[Brussels]], [[Belgium]]. In matters relating to economic integration ("First or 'Community' Pillar"), only the Commission has the right to propose legislation for approval by the EU Council and European Parliament. As "guardian of the Treaties," the Commission ensures that EU laws are applied and upheld throughout the EU, prosecuting Member States and other institutions for failing to follow treaty precepts or otherwise apply Community law. The Commission has full authority to enforce Community competition policy, and its policing of implementation of Community legislation preserves the integrity of the EU single market. The Commission likewise manages and develops the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), implements the budget, and represents the European Community in its areas of competence, notably including international trade negotiations.

The Commission President is appointed by agreement of the EU heads of government and is subject to approval by the European Parliament. Commissioners serve for a renewable five-year term. New Commissioners are identified by Member State governments in consultation with the President-designate of the Commission and are normally put in place at the beginning of the term of the Commission President. The entire Commission must be confirmed as a collective whole by the European Parliament before its formal appointment by common accord of EU governments.

===The European Council===
The European Council brings together EU heads of government and the President of the European Commission; foreign ministers of Member States also participate. Finance ministers are normally included when the leaders discuss questions related to the euro and the economy. The European Council meets at least twice a year, usually quarterly, at the end of each Presidency, to review major EU projects, set guidelines for policies and provide necessary guidance. The Presidency of the Council rotates every six months among EU Member States (January-June; July- December). Its role has become increasingly important with the expansion of EU responsibilities and competencies. The Presidency organizes and presides over the meetings of the European Council and EU Council (ministerial) meetings, drafts compromises, and seeks solutions to problems submitted to the European Council.

===Council of Ministers===
The Council of Ministers of the European Union (the "EU Council") is the body in which representatives of the individual Member State governments, usually ministers, legislate for the EU, set its political objectives, coordinate national policies and resolve differences among their governments and with other EU bodies. Legally speaking, there is only one Council, but it meets in nine different formations, depending on the matters on its agenda. Foreign ministers usually meet at least once a month in the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC), which deals with major foreign policy issues and plays a coordinating role. Ministers for the Economy and Finance (ECOFIN) and ministers responsible for agriculture also hold monthly meetings. Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) hold regular meetings to coordinate policies within their competence.

The Council holds formal sessions in its Brussels headquarters, except in April, June and October, when all sessions take place in Luxembourg. Most formations of the Council also meet informally (tasking no legally binding decisions) in the country holding the EU Presidency, usually once in the course of the Presidency's six-month term. The most prominent of these informal meetings is the so-called "Gymnich" meeting of foreign ministers, named for a town in Germany where the first such meeting took place.

The Council takes most decisions under the Community Pillar by qualified majority voting (QMV) but endeavors to reach the broadest possible consensus before approving legislation. Unanimity is required for a number of specific areas related to economic integration (e.g. taxation), constitutional matters such as amendments to the treaties, the launching of a new common policy, the accession of a new Member State, and matters falling within the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Security and Defense Policy, and aspects of law enforcement and judicial cooperation. The number of votes cast by each Member State when the EU Council votes by qualified majority voting was determined by the Nice Treaty and roughly correlates to the size of its population.

===The European Parliament===
The European Parliament is the largest trans-national parliament in the world, and the second-largest overall (behind [[India]]), with an electorate of almost half a billion. Members of the Parliament are directly elected by all EU citizens for five-year terms; elections follow national election procedures, except they have to be a form of proportional representation. Members do not sit in national delegations; rather, they sit in groups according to political affiliation (including Socialists, Christian-Democrats/Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, etc.).

Parliament's powers have gradually grown with the entry into force of the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1993) and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999). Parliament shares decision-making power on an equal footing with the Council in many areas under the Community Pillar to which the "co-decision procedure" applies. The European Parliament is one of the two branches with budgetary authority – the Council is the other. The signature of the EP president brings the overall EU budget into effect.

The European Parliament also plays a role in the process of selecting the President and other members of the Commission. The European Council's nomination of the President is subject to approval by the Parliament. The EP holds U.S.-style public hearings of Commission nominees before taking a formal vote to approve the nomination of the Commission as a body. Parliament has the power to censure the entire Commission, but not to dismiss individual Commissioners.

===The European Court of Justice===
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ensures uniform interpretation and application of both the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the secondary legislation and other law adopted under their authority. To enable it to carry out that task, the Court has wide jurisdiction to hear various types of cases. For example, the Court has the authority to hear and issue binding judgments in lawsuits that seek to annul a law adopted by the EU, to compel an EU institution to act, or to require that a Member State comply with EU law. The ECJ may issue clarifications of EU law (in response to a request for a preliminary ruling from any Member State court) and hears appeals on legal questions arising out of cases at the Court of First Instance. The ECJ currently has 27 justices and eight advocates-general, who are appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States and who hold office for six-year renewable terms.

==Sovereignty==
The member states of the European Union fall under the jurisdiction of the Union's legislative and judicial institutions (the Court of Justice, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament) in those competences that they have conferred to the Union (the principle of subsidiarity). Similar to Federal Law trumping State Law in United States politics, EU member states are obliged to follow the laws set forth by the European Court of Justice, even if their national laws are contradictory. This system of government pools sovereignty in those agreed areas from the nation, and rests it in the EU institutions. Some political theorists argue that the EU is thus the death of the nation, as by the Treaty of Westphalia, nations are defined by their right of self-sovereignty; however, each member state has a legal right to cede from the EU, which non-sovereign components of states do not.

==Economy==
The institutions of the European Union were originally created to oversee the operation of the several economic communities that later became the Single European Market. Even as the EU's political integration has continued, the area of greatest integration has always been in the economic sphere: goods, capital, and labor move freely between Member States (with exceptions for goods which pose a public health risk), businesses in all Member States are increasingly subject to common basic rules, and fifteen of the 27 Member States use a common currency, the euro. The rest of the states are legally obliged to adopt the euro when their economies meet strict ''Convergence Criteria''. The fifteen Euro-area countries share a common monetary policy administered by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany. The EU strives to eliminate internal barriers to the free flow of goods, services, labor, and capital, and to promote the overall convergence of living standards. Internationally, the EU aims to strengthen Europe's trade position and capitalize on the political and economic leverage that a large, unified market brings.

===Growth===
The EU is the world's largest economic area (the U.S. is second) with a 2007 GDP of $16.6 trillion; however, growth in many western Member States in the recent past has been slow compared to those in the east. Between 2001 and 2003, the overall growth rate dropped from 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent. The EU economy staged a,short-lived recovery in 2004 of 2.4%, but fell to 1.8 percent in 2005, then rose to 2.8% in 2006 and 2.4% in 2007. Within the euro area, growth varies as much as 4.5 percentage points between the fastest and slowest-growing economies. In 2005, many of the EU's largest economies, including Germany, France and Italy, grew by less than two percent. Outside the euro area, growth remains strong, particularly in the Central and Eastern European countries that joined the EU in May 2004.

In spring 2000, the EU committed to a ten-year strategic goal of transforming the EU into a more competitive, knowledge-based economy capable of sustaining higher levels of growth. Focusing on labor market reform, macroeconomic and fiscal policy, and promotion of e-commerce and entrepreneurship, the EU's "Lisbon Agenda" was an attempt to stimulate growth while remaining committed to the EU social model. Some suggest that it has so far failed to achieve its goals in large part because national governments (which retain authority over employment policy, immigration, large public sector workforces, entitlement programs and pensions) have not completed the necessary reforms. With unemployment at 6.9 percent in 2007, generous social programs continue to strain national economies. The European Commission re-launched the Lisbon Agenda in March 2005, promising three percent growth and six million new jobs by 2010. The revamped strategy focuses on developing political consensus within Member States to make the changes necessary to complete elimination of barriers in the internal market, reduce the regulatory burden on business, improve labor market flexibility, provide incentives to work and increase investment in human capital.

===Fiscal and Monetary Policy===
Introduced in 1999, the euro is currently the official currency of fifteen of the 27 EU Member States. United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden chose to retain their national currencies, and some of the newer EU members have yet to meet the strict economic conditions required to adopt the euro. Prior to the euro's launch in 1999, national currency exchange rates of countries intending to join the euro were fixed within an Exchange Rate Mechanism. Following the January 2002 introduction of euro notes and coins into general circulation, national currencies were removed from circulation. Each of the euro area countries agreed to abide by a shared fiscal policy rule book known as the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). This agreement generally obliges national governments to limit government budget deficits to 3 percent of GDP and established a target debt-to-GDP ratio of below sixty percent. Although enforcement actions have been forgiving – France and Germany, for example, avoided sanctions despite missing SGP targets – countries violating the SGP are technically subject to sanctions by the European Commission. As of March 2005, national governments have been granted budget leeway to achieve structural reforms and to combat prolonged stagnation, negative growth or other factors, such as the cost of German reunification or state pensions. The revised standards still require deficits to remain close to the targets; they may only temporarily exceed the three percent limit.

The euro area's monetary policy is set by the European Central Bank (ECB), which must devise a monetary policy to accommodate a wide range of domestic policies and economic conditions within the euro area. The Treaties require that the ECB's primary objective be to maintain price stability (i.e., to keep inflation low). Euro area national governments have sometimes criticized the ECB for guarding against inflation at the expense of interest rate flexibility that could enable struggling economies to gain traction. The ECB's consistent overnight interest rate of two percent has been credited with creating favorable conditions for growth in Spain and Ireland, but has been blamed for hindering growth in France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Non-EU countries have also adopted the euro, including Andorra, United Kingdom base areas, Kosovo, Monaco, Montenegro, and the Vatican City. Additionally, several countries have currencies pegged to the euro, including French African states and those in the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

===Trade===
The EU is the world's largest exporter of goods and services. In 2003, the then-fifteen EU members exported $987 billion worth of goods to non-EU countries. The EU's exports grew rapidly between 1996 and 2000 but have grown more slowly since. Except for 2002, the EU as a whole has posted a trade deficit every year since 1999; it was $62 billion in 2004. The EU is a major exporter of chemicals, transport equipment, and industrial machinery. The EU has large trade deficits in raw materials and energy, and a small deficit in food and drink.

The U.S. is the EU's main trading partner by a wide margin. U.S. goods and services exports to the EU reached $283 billion in 2004, while U.S. goods and services imports from the EU totaled $388 billion. Asian economies such as Japan and China, however, account for an increasingly important share of EU trade. The EU's two-way merchandise trade with China grew to $223 million in 2004, while merchandise trade with Japan was $149 million. Internal trade between Euro area and non-Euro area countries was down one percent in the first quarter of 2005, but the EU's external trade was up four percent, particularly with Russia and Norway.

Member States have given almost exclusive authority to the EU to negotiate trade treaties that bind the Member States. The European Community (EC) is a full member of the World Trade Organization and plays an active role in the Doha Development Round to foster international trade in services and agricultural products. Bilaterally, the EC maintains framework agreements to facilitate trade flows with thirty-five countries worldwide, mostly elsewhere in Europe, in North Africa, and in the Middle East.

===Foreign Direct Investment===
The EU is both a major destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) and a major source of FDI. U.S. foreign direct investment in the EU totaled $83.3 billion in 2004; EU FDI into the U.S. totaled $46.6 billion. Following strong year-upon-year growth in the late 1990s, however, inward and outward flows of FDI have contracted since 2001. The EU is a net recipient of FDI from Japan, receiving $81 billion in 2003. Conversely, the EU is a net investor in Canada ($86 billion in outward investment in 2003), and China ($29 billion in outward investment in 2003). Growth of intra-EU FDI has increased rapidly in recent years and has increased much faster than FDI in non-EU countries.

The pattern of foreign investment by European firms reflects deep commercial ties with the United States. U.S. and EU businesses invest heavily and operate profitably on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. affiliates in Europe accounted for 56 percent of the aggregate output of U.S. affiliates worldwide. European firms were the largest foreign investors in 44 U.S. states and the second largest foreign investor in the remaining six. Sales by U.S. affiliates in Europe totaled $1.5 trillion in 2002, more than double those of U.S. affiliates in the Asia/Pacific region. European affiliate sales in the U.S. were $1.2 trillion in 2002, more than three times the value of U.S. imports from Europe.

Intra-firm trade involving foreign affiliates is particularly important to the transatlantic trade and investment relationship. Approximately 58 percent of U.S. imports from the EU in 2004 involved trade between related parties, as did 30 percent of U.S. exports to Europe in 2003. This high level of intra-firm trade has contributed to the persistence of the U.S. trade deficit with Europe even as the dollar has lost value against the Euro since 2002.

===Budget===
The EU's budget is essentially made up of Member State contributions. Equivalent to roughly one percent of the Member States' combined gross national income (GNI), it was $123 billion in 2005. The UK receives a rebate for some of its contribution, as the CAP benefits the UK less than other states. In June 2005, the EU failed to agree on a budget plan for 2007 through 2013, due in part to a disagreement between the UK and France over the persistence of the UK budget rebate and the funding of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Costs attributable to the CAP constitute the EU's largest annual budget item, benefiting farmers across the EU, especially in France. Payments to net-recipient Member States, designed to reduce economic and social disparities among EU countries and regions, are another budget item which has become more contentious with the accession of ten new states poorer than the EU average.

==Criticism==
A significant number of Europeans on the political right of center are opposed to the EU on the grounds that it undermines national sovereignty and identity. Such people are known in British English as "Eurosceptics", and they include such people as the former British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] (although, while in power, she committed Britain to the 1986 [[Single European Act]], a major integrationist measure) and the members of the [[UK Independence Party]]. They also, however, include less well-respected politicians belonging to far right or [[nationalism|nationalist]] parties, such as France's [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]. There are also extreme left-wing opponents of the European Union, such as ''Die Linke'' in Germany, who regard it as constituting an anti-progressive "Fortress Europe", and claim that EU membership impedes countries from following socialist policies.{{fact}}

==History==
Following World War II, traditional European rivals sought to solidify peace by bringing their nations together under a common institutional structure. Influenced by his compatriot Jean Monnet, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman officially tabled a plan on May 9, 1950 to pool French and German coal and steel production under an organization that would be open to other European countries. German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer supported this proposal, and six founding countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – took an early step toward European integration by establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) the following year.

After failing to establish a European Defense Community in the 1950s, the six countries then decided to set up a common market. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, they created the European Economic Community (EEC), with an objective of liberating the movement of goods, capital, workers and services. (The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) was also established at this time.) The Treaty of Rome established the basic institutions and decision-making mechanisms still in place in today's European Union. As of July 1, 1968, the EEC abolished customs duties between Member States on manufactured goods. New policies, including a common agricultural policy (CAP) and a common trade policy, were in place by the end of the 1960s.

The success of the European integration project during a period of steady economic growth in the 1960s set the stage for a first enlargement – the accession of the UK, Ireland and Denmark – in 1973. Further "deepening" of European integration followed: the Community acquired executive authority in social, regional, and environment policies. The benefits of economic convergence became more evident in the context of the 1970s energy crisis and financial turmoil, which led to the launch of the European Monetary System in 1979. In the same year, the first direct elections to the European Parliament (EP) took place. Previously, delegates from national parliaments had represented their country's legislative bodies at the EP in Strasbourg, France.

The Community further expanded southward with the accession of Greece (1981, the second enlargement), followed by Spain and Portugal (1986, the third enlargement). These accessions led the EEC to adopt "structural programs" in order to reduce economic and social disparities among its regions.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Community began to assert itself on the international scene with the conclusion of agreements with southern Mediterranean countries. Starting in 1963, the EEC signed four successive Lome Conventions, which guaranteed trading advantages and development aid for Member States' former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP).

World recession and internal disputes over Member States' financial burdens gave way, from 1985 onward, to renewed efforts for economic integration, enshrined in the 1985 "Single European Act" (SEA) and marked by the 1992 "Single Market Project." The SEA set January 1, 1993 as the date by which an internal single market was to be established and, by extending the practice of majority voting rather than unanimity in the EU Council, gave Community institutions the means of adopting the 300 Community-wide Directives required to abolish the remaining barriers and obstacles to intra-Community trade. In 1995, the Community entered into the "Barcelona" partnership with twelve southern Mediterranean countries. The partnership, reinforced by agreements on social, cultural, and human cooperation, was intended to lead to a free-trade area.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall and German unification prompted Member States to negotiate the 1992 Treaty on European Union (the "Maastricht Treaty"). In addition to establishing the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty set an ambitious program of further integration: establishment of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by 1999 (part of the "First or 'Community' Pillar"), setting up of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) ("Second Pillar"); and cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) ("Third Pillar"). Shortly thereafter, in 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU – the fourth enlargement.

Signed in 1997 and entering into force on May 1, 1999, the Amsterdam Treaty partially streamlined the EU institutional structure. Its most significant effects were: (1) to transfer aspects of Justice and Home Affairs policy to the Community Pillar, enabling the Commission to propose decisions to be taken by the EU Council by qualified majority voting instead of by consensus, and (2) to establish a High Representative for the CFSP (who also serves as Secretary-General of the Council Secretariat). Ten countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus began accession procedures in 1997, followed by Malta. The prospect of eastward enlargement raised significant resource concerns and prompted the adoption in March 1999 of the "Agenda 2000" package, which covered amendments to the CAP and EU structural policies, as well as a budgetary framework through 2006.

In May 1998, EU heads of government officially designated eleven Member States eligible to adopt a single currency. Greece initially did not qualify, and Sweden, the UK and Denmark "opted out." On January 1, 1999, the euro became the official currency of the EU, and the European Central Bank (ECB) put euro notes and coins into circulation on January 1, 2002. Today, fifteen countries use the euro: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

Streamlining the size and procedures of EU institutions to make the expanded EU more efficient was also an aim of the 2003 Treaty of Nice. A year later, in May 2004, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU, and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania acceded, bringing total membership to 27. Candidate countries currently include Turkey, FYR Macedonia and Croatia, and potential candidates include the rest of the Western Balkan states.

In October 2004, Member States signed an EU Constitutional Treaty in Rome, intending that it take effect on November 1, 2006 by replacing all previous treaties. French and Dutch voters rejected the treaty through referendums in 2005, thereby suspending the ratification process. In 2007, a modified Treaty of Lisbon was agreed upon, which retains most of the reforms of the Constitution, but amends rather than replaces previous treaties. If ratified by all member states, it is expected to enter into force in 2009, ready for the elections of the Parliament in June, which will decide the Presidents of the Parliament, Commission and Council.

==Candidates for membership==
There are three official candidates being considered for membership, [[Turkey]], [[Croatia]] and [[The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]]. The western Balkan states of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania are officially ''potential candidates''. A country that is expected to accede is required to make some economic, social and governmental changes to bring it in line with other member states.

There is some conflict between current EU member states over possible candidates for membership. For example, The United Kingdom is in favor of adding Turkey to the EU, while France is strongly against Turkey's possible membership.

Gateway to the European Union (EU official website) <ref>http://europa.eu/</ref>

==Member nations==
*[[Austria]]
*[[Belgium]]
*[[Bulgaria]]
*[[Cyprus]]
*[[Czech Republic]]
*[[Denmark]]
*[[Estonia]]
*[[Finland]]
*[[France]]
*[[Germany]]
*[[Greece]]
*[[Hungary]]
*[[Ireland]]
*[[Italy]]
*[[Latvia]]
*[[Lithuania]]
*[[Luxembourg]]
*[[Malta]]
*[[Netherlands]]
*[[Poland]]
*[[Portugal]]
*[[Romania]]
*[[Slovakia]]
*[[Slovenia]]
*[[Spain]]
*[[Sweden]]
*[[United Kingdom]]

==References==
<References/>

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/54126.htm]}}

[[Category:Europe]]
[[category:politics]]