Talk:Democratic Party

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --Dave3172 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above. --WhatWouldJesusEdit? 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the Republican Party page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

Yes. (Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.)--Jack 04:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with some of the other criticisms. First off, I am very conservative and was looking forward to coming here to find some truth about the history of our political parties.

A year or two ago, I read A History of Money and Banking in the United States, by Murray Rothbard. For the first time, I realized the parties had changed over the years. My specific observation was that the Democrat and Republican parties seemed to be virtually reversed now compared to what they were in the mid-19th century. I recently decided to dig into it a little more and found that things were much more complicated than I had thought, but that what I had observed in Murray Rothbard's book had some truth to it.

Let me give you a few examples. First, the Whig Party (successor to the Federalist Party [Alexander Hamilton] and predecessor to the Republican Party): pro central bank, more debt, higher taxes, high tariffs, federal aid to the states, paper currency, economic expansion through an activist government, and so on. And the early-20th-century Republican party: in favor of prohibition (think people control).

Second, we have the Democrat Party up until about the end of the 20th century (successor to the Democratic-Republican Party [Thomas Jefferson & James Madison], and eventually morphing into the modern-day Democrat Party): less debt, lower taxes, pro-hard money, distrusted the federal government, opposed to a central bank (Jackson called it a monopoly), pro States' rights, viewed the central government as the enemy of individual liberty, and so on.

These are all simple facts, not subjective and not open to interpretation. Anyway, I just wanted to express my disappointment at this article. I don't know that the author was attempting to deceive anyone, but if not, he just didn't do very good research. It's a shame that someone would be so committed to the name "Republican" that they wouldn't be truthful or committed to adequate research, especially since so many Republican politicians don't care about the Constitution and limited government, anyway. Why be committed to them? --Birdus 18:19, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

Some of these?

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of some of these by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. Zondergard

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--Jack 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. Myk 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

ICK, no kidding, I like how the article is slanted to make it seem like all democrats are sinners and I bet that a equal number of republicans were slave owners —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:MrRandom (talk)
Your bet is on, my good man. I got $100 cash that says no Republicans were slave owners. RobS 14:05, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Ulysses S. Grant owned a slave ( E-mail me for the address to send the $100. --Nimble 11:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)


So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. Stargrave 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. MountainDew 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them! How's that for logic yankee!

You make no sense. Bush is clearly a lord of the sith for being so black and white in his quote

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. Stargrave 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

How about a more sound explaination. Just because the majority of the democrats voted against invading Iraq does not mean they support terrorism. The definition of terrorism is the use of force to coerce a particular ideology. Terrorism is not only in Iraq. There are terrorists in every nation of the world, including the U.S. The violent acts instigated from the KKK, IRA, or Freedom Fighters, is terrorism. As long as people feel oppressed and that something is unfair, there will always be terrorism.Idealist101

If you admit that Bush is not a terrorist for attacking another country he had no right to attack, then you also admit that people who did not support him in his illegal attack are not terrorists. His fault is clearly the greater one and we are excusing his, therefore the smaller fault (if it can even be called that) is clearly excusable. Enough said. Squiddy

Use of AD

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

Liberal Economics

Liberal economics is not a political term. Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses or deficits. --Crackertalk 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. RobS 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
In this classical use of the term Ronald Reagan was an economic liberal. He supported deregulation, free trade, low taxes... That is basically what an "economic liberal" is. It has nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative" and is somewhat of an archaic term. To make matters worse most liberals are not "economic liberals" (they support tariffs and heavy handed forms of central planning to promote "fairness" and "economic justice"). Richard 01:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, my idea of an "economic liberal" is Milton Friedman who saw no difference between "economics" and "politics" (like Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Friedrich Hayek who devoted most of their writing effort to things most people consider political theory). And while Reagan invoked Friedman for authority, he ignored virtually everything Milton Friedman advocated for government policy. For example, instead of legalizing drugs, Reagan renewed the initiative to add extra million Americans to the already large number of wards of the state. (Felons in prison.) Reagan, has have most Republicans, have ensured that corporations get free lunches by not needing to pay for the resources they deplete nor the damage their pollution does - even Friedman argued that pollution costs needed to assessed. In any case, I don't think the Democratic Party and Republican Party are measurably different in having no real economic theoretical basis for policy, with the apparent difference being Republicans claiming a theory that they reject when they make the proposals they want, while the Democrats just make their proposal; in the end, the Democratic policies are not inconflict with their claimed economic principles, while the Republicans are very clearly in conflict. Mulp 00:46, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Have you read Adam Smith? RobS 00:48, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
See here for example [1], Wikipedia quotes Smith,
"There is one sort of labour which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is bestowed; there is another which has no such effect. The former, as it produces a value, may be called productive; the latter, unproductive labour. Thus the labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master's profit. The labour of a menial servant, on the contrary, adds to the value of nothing. Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labour is bestowed. But the maintenance of a menial servant never is restored. A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. "
This is typical quote mining of Smith taught by every Marxist professor in the United States. I had to finish the quote,
A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. The labour of the latter, however, has its value, and deserves its reward as well." RobS 00:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

You've nailed the issue on the head. Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin are two recent examples in history of liberals; as User:Order raised the issue here [2] comparing the American use of the term vs its use outside the US. RobS 12:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
So if little government intervention in the economy is the liberal stance on economics... does that make socialism the conservative viewpoint? GodlessLiberal 23:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Good question. That presupposes liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites. Now, in a purely cycnical sense, one can say that they are, just as sanity and insanity are polar opposites. This is one reason I personally do not subscribe to the spectrum theory.
In economic theory, liberality and prodigality are polar opposites. In American political culture, "liberals" really are for the most part socialists; however in its American use it carries a connotation of "treasonous". This is absent outside of America, were many American allies, Britain or Israel for example, have Socialist governments. Not just Socialist laws or policies, actual Socialist parties in control of government. So if we were to apply that American understanding of the term, i.e. that a "Socialist" is "anti-American", how do we explain close allies being "anti-American"?
Thus, American political vocabulary is all screwed up. And all we can really say for sure is both terms, liberal and socialist, are abused and neither conveys a clear meaning. RobS 23:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

By Jefferson?

Democratic Party founded by Jefferson... Humm. I thought he founded the Democratic-Republican party which was actually referred to by contemporaries as the "Republican" party. The modern Democratic party is the result of several splinter and transitions just like the Republican Party. Arguably both parties are splinters from Jefferson's original party, just the Republican party went through the transition to the Whig party first. Richard 01:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

You should learn how to place information in a talk page appropriately
And you should learn to make an account and sign your entries so as not to appear as a cowardly wiseguy. Jros83 15:56, 27 June 2007 (EDT)


Seriously, I thought I would clean up the presentation seeing as I can't in good conscience touch the content... but... GEE WHIZ these sources are awful. A column? Cheesy little websites with election trivia? Pictures of maps? This is the best we could do? Myk 03:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remove the polling data, it's worthless

Opinion polls are not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, except maybe to provide background information for a specific political event, such as an election. If someone is reading this article two years from now, do you think the democrat Congress's approval rating in the second week of April 2007 will be relevant to them? Of course not. I'm not going to summarily remove it now, but I suspect most intelligent people will agree with me that it doesn't belong.--Conservateur 14:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm more than happy to let it stay...provided we add the same polling data to the Republican Party page and the George W. Bush page. We are supposed to be even-handed here, right?--Dave3172 14:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
No, we're supposed to be writing educational, clear, and concise articles. Polling data is useless in almost any context. I vote to remove it. Who's with me?--Conservateur 14:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree. I'm actually taking a Public Opinion course right now in college, and it's a very important gauge of historical support and for looking back and seeing why policies were enacted. Plus, once it's no longer April or whatever, we can remove it anyway. DanH 14:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Well your public opinion course is probably taught by a bunch of liberals who live and die by opinion polls. And which enacted policies does the poll mentioned in this article help explain? None. My point is, if they are not being used to help understand the political climate surrounding a particular event, they are utterly useless because they're out of date not long after they're released. So unless someone wants to keep this article updated with current polling information until the end of time, there is no reason to have it.--Conservateur 14:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
The first major expansion to Iraq War, for example, had absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with the war, it's causes, it's course, etc. It was an insertion of extensive polling data [3] A lenghty edit war ensued, and the material not only is still in the article, it has its own subhead.[4] Because opinion polls are obviously important to some editors not only in giving meaningful context, but in creating meaningful context, this material should stay in this article and be updated periodically. RobS 15:19, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I would agree if the polls were used in any meaningful context in this article, but they aren't. What is the point of saying that according to some research poll, 50% of Americans currently identify with the democrat party? Or that as of 4/18, 53% of Americans support the democrat Congress. Are these numbers rising? Falling? Are they a cause or effect of the 2006 election, or both? There's no context. People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.--Conservateur 15:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
The point is, polling obviously is important to many contributors. They evidently either make personal judgements based upon polling data, or view it as foundational to any public arguement or discourse. And it's hard to argue with statistics. RobS 15:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. 1, your ad hominem attack on a professor you don't even know the name of (and whose political views I don't even know, because the course is taught in a nonpartisan manner) has no bearing whatsoever on this debate, and #2, I never said that the data should ever be anything more than temporary and relevant. Do we refuse to list the governors of states because this changes over time? DanH 15:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
If you think that calling a professor a liberal is an attack, I guess that's your problem. But your ridiculous question about governors just weakens your argument. There is only one governor of a state at any given time, but there are dozens of opinion polls which rarely come up with the same results. So adding opinion polls willy nilly in an encyclopedia article does nothing but detract from its intent of being factual.--Conservateur 15:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Wait a second. This article includes the slanted weasel words "Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism[11] and insufficiently patriotic" ... they are cited, mind you, but aren't these attacks pretty much the same as opinion polls? Why not link to the copious amounts of info that says Democrats are quite patriotic and serious about terror? Why choose these two extremely biased opinion links? Are these really "facts" worth building an encyclopedia entry around? --Wennberg 22:27, 23 May 2007 (EDT)


The sentence: Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 53.8% disapproval and a 36.8% approval rating according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 04/05 - 04/18. [5] This is the "Congressional job Approval poll" not the "democratic congress approval poll". Rob Pommertalk

Hmm, let's see, who controls the US House of Reps & the Senate.... RobS 12:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough...let us also include the pre-election numbers then shall we? Based on the Fox News Poll of 10-11-2006 Approve:31% Disapprove:63% Spread:-32% ( from the same source). Rob Pommertalk

What those numbers show is the misreporting on GW Bush's poll numbers. Both Bush & the Democratic Congress suffer from negative polls, 60/40. IOW, people do not disapprove of Bush personally, people disapprove of the performance of government in general. RobS 12:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
The poll should be taken out because it doesn't relate specifically to the Democratic Party. The poll is talking about the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter that the Democrats are in control of Congress. If you were able to get a statistic about just the Democrat approval rating in Congress than you might be able to use it, but as it is right now some of the people in the poll are saying how they don't approve what the Republicans are doing in Congress too. --Spyder 13:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


The Treaty of Ghent called for everything to return to the Status Quo Antebellum. In other words, a draw. The text of the treaty can be read in the United States Statutes at Large found here <> --1048247 13:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

While Status Quo Antebellum referes to territorial disputesd, it does not refere to other objectives, American complaint of British interference on the high seas. So while Britain failed in it achieving its objectives it can be considered defeated. Whereas the US achieiving its stated aims, it can be considered victorious. RobS 13:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Most good college level textbooks (Tindall and Shi, and Ayers, Gould, et. al.) have the war as a draw. The two nations agreed to end the conflict, leave prewar boundries in place, and return prisoners. All other questions were to be settled in the future. It would be difficult to see this as anything other than a draw.--1048247 14:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, good points. No problem. RobS 14:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

To whoever keeps changing this part. Follow the link above and read the treaty.

Needed citations

This article needs some citations. I decided to help out by flagging some of the facts that needed to be supported. --Wennberg 22:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)


In reply to Johnl's questions for the reverts, the reason is obvious: FDR failed to lead the U.S. out of the depression, instead keeping the U.S. in a depression until WWII. Nor did FDR lead us to victory in WWII. FDR was dying in 1945.--Aschlafly 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

He died I think over a month or two before VE day.Bohdan Talk 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't it at least be mentioned that he led the nation during important battles; Normandy, Midway, etc.? --Hojimachongtalk 18:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Looks like I am wrong. He died a little less than a month before VE day. But he was incapacitated a while before then.Bohdan Talk 19:00, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

FDR led the US for most fo the war.

WWII was basically between the Soviet Union & Germany; if anybody "won" the War, it was the Soviet Union. 88% of all casualties in WWII were in the Soviet Union. RobS 21:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Further, FDR did not "lead the US out of the Depression"; the New Ordeal (a euphemism for "New Deal") lasted until 1949. RobS 21:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmph you know I'm almost afraid to say this, becaunse I'm not the type tostart screaming conspiracy, however it does seem as if this is a blatant attempt to make a DEMOCRAT president seem as if he was completely unimportant and totally irrelevant to the nation during perhaps the biggest and most influential crisis in modern history of which we (theUnited States) were the deciding factor in. Come on... So FDR was a Democrat. So what. To make it seem as if he wasn't all that important (in apositive manner) is a bit silly. Jros83 16:00, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

True; the planet would indeed be a different place if FDR didn't get elected. Some credit should be given to the courageous souls who supported him, without whom we'd all be eating sauerkraut and sushi right now. Why I just read how Strom Thurmond supported FDR for a fourth term. [6] RobS 16:11, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Even when you're being sarcastic it is nice to see acknowledgment and validation of his positive importance. Jros83 16:41, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, FDR & the Kennedy's prove the falacy of Marxism; the Roosevelt's and the Kennedy's prove that rich aristocrats who never did a stitch of labor in thier life, that inherited it all by exploiting the poor, actually (a) may have a function and (b) usefulness on this planet. RobS 18:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
You're not dragging me into a loaded "debate." I don't agree with your opinion on what you just mentioned, and I find it all too convenient that you chose two figures I recently did critiques of their articles on here. But I'm not biting. Honestly I'd expect better of a sysop. Jros83 02:08, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Huh? Wha...? Please show me where the above analysis of the Roosevelt's, Kennedy's & Marxist theory is in error. RobS 09:40, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
P.S. No need to make personal comments directed at me over this. I apologize, my faith prohibits me from worshipping human beings; that many Democrats and liberals have looked to the messianic vision of the Roosevelt & Kennedy families for generations is a matter of record. Please, let's not allow anti-religious bigotry into this discussion. Thank you. RobS

Um... if FDR was president when the depression ended, regardless of the reason wouldn't that techincally make it correct to state that he DID lead us out of it...? Jros83 13:23, 24 August 2008 (EDT) Oh wait I'm sorry, I keep forgetting FDR was the biggest commie there ever was save for maybe Marx. How silly of me.

Religion section

For some reason, Jim Webb of VA is listed in this section as a catholic, he is not. He is protestant of some sort. Someone should put in the name of another prominant catholic senator. JamesBenjamin 10:14, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Homosexual section

I removed the bit about the hate crime law making it illegal to criticize homosexuality, as there is no basis for this. Some wingnut saying "this law will make it illegal to say bad things about gays" (which is all the citation said) does not mean hate crime law will make it illegal to say bad things about gays. It wouldn't trump the first amendment. People are still allowed to be racist, in spite of current hate crime legislation. This won't change when it comes to homosexuality either. PortlyMort 14:19, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

  1. You shouldn't have deleted the sources, just because you disagree with how they're interpreted.
  2. Unless you are completely new to wiki collaboration, you already know that edit warring is counter-productive. --Ed Poor Talk 14:30, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the block. Now, the article still has major problems, and the sentence I removed is a blatant violation of item #6 on this list. I think some compromise phrasing can be worked out. I don't mind the conservative slant on the article as a whole (it is Conservapedia after all); everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. I'm going to take a shot at rephrasing the problematical part without removing the source, as it were. I'd appreciate not getting blocked for it. If there is a problem let's discuss it here. PortlyMort 21:15, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually we got about a half dozen or a dozen different cites that all say the samething, i.e. the 110th Congress is seriously considering criminalizing the preaching of the Gospel. So if it's a nuke arms race on sources you want, you will get it. RobS 21:21, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
I'd be very curious to see such sources, particularly if they can actually cite actual proposed legislation. The "source" currently given does nothing but quote a random critic. If Michael Moore jumps up on a table and says "The Republicans want to send immigrants to slaughterhouses!" I would hardly think it appropriate to add that Republicans condone the mass murder of foreigners to their article. We need more than the someone-says-so approach. PortlyMort 21:30, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

This compromise is meaningless:

  • although a law passed by Congress would have no power to overrule the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment

Of course "a law passed by Congress" would have no power to do anything unless the President signs it, or unless a two/thirds majority overrides a veto. Both cases are highly unlikely. Everybody knows, this Bill does not stand a WP:SNOW. But this is the "Democratic Party" mainspace, and criminalizing the Gospel as a meaningless gesture to a valued constituency is or was the position taken by Democratic Congressional leadership. There is no way to poo-poo that now that it is plain as day that Democratic Congresspeople lied to thier constituents when they (a) ran for office, (b) introduced a Bill they knew the President would never sign, and (c) they would never garner enough GOP votes to override a Presidential veto.

SOooooooo......DNC rot just will not play here in CP. Thank you. RobS 21:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Please prove that the Democratic Party has introduced legislation "criminalizing the Gospel". And are you saying it is dishonest to introduce a bill if you don't have enough votes to override a veto? I can't imagine you are, because that is a ridiculous statement to make, but I can't see how whether or not they have 2/3 of Congress is relevent to the actual contents of the hate crime bill, which is what is being discussed here. The issue is not whether or not the bill's status in regards to WP:SNOW but what the bill actually says. Give us a source. A real source. If you don't want the bit about the First Amendment in there, fine, whatever, but at the moment all that has been established is that critics allege the bill would prohibit criticism of homosexuality. To say otherwise blatantly contradicts the statement made that "We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts", which is exactly what this article is doing. PortlyMort 21:46, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Here's some cites:
You'e sending me to another Conservapedia article as a source? Oh come on! As for the references at those pages, some are the same as the source here, and amount only to the say-so of another critic. One is about a legislation in Canada, which, last I checked, was out of the jurisdiction of the US Congress. Only one referenced any particular incident at all, a single event in Philly wherein people were charged with an assortment of crimes. That the charges were thrown out just shows it was a case of wrongful arrest, not of hate crimes criminalizing the Bible. While wrongful arrest and misintepretation of law are serious issues, they are not the issue in this article. Where are the primary sources? Where are excerpts from hate crime bills that make preaching the Bible illegal? Let's hold the articles here to some standards, okay? Even Wikipedia does a better job than this. PortlyMort 22:15, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
oowww low blow...ok, since you've been upfront & civil about it, and have addressed some specific valid points, I'll get the information for you. Not sure I can do it all tonite, but I'll put it on the front burner for the AM if I can't do it tonite.
The point you raised about jounralists opinions is valid, but most of the cites we've linked to in these three entries are not simply editorial opinions, the are direct references to persons and experts involved in these issues. And a further note, we also have the views of minority members of Congress which say basically the same thing. And of course, we can also look at the exact language of the Bill, which is quoted in part in some of these cites. RobS 23:01, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
It was not meant to be a low blow. If ever I were to ask for a source on Wikipedia and I were pointed to another Wikipedia article I would naturally rake that user over the coals. Wikipedia does have an strict policy on reliable sources, although exactly what sources can be considered reliable is a subject of endless debate. I'm not sure what the policy here is, but I suppose there must be one. In any case, I would assume that not taking journalists for their word would apply to many other professions as well, particularly partisan hacks from either side of the aisle. Both Democrats and Republicans are perfectly capabile of demonizing the stance of the opposition on any number of controversial issues, and taking their word as fact is not going to aid the credibility of this site. As of now it has been established that critics do allege that hate crime legislation would prohibit criticism of the homosexual lifestyle, but I see no evidence that the legislation would do this. I'd like to be able to put the "critics allege" bit back in (minus the bit on the 1st amendment, if you're so against it) without getting banned for "edit warring" without warning. And let us not equate someone shouting "Die, Fag! Die!", which may be considered either protected speech or a threat on someone's life (and a subject worthy of debate), with reciting passages from the Bible about Sodom and Gomorrah (which is protected speech, regardless of what critics allege hate crime legislation says, or even what the bill itself says). The former, if it were addressed by hate crime law, could hardly be considered a blanket ban on all speech critical of homosexuality. PortlyMort 23:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually I was just too lazy to cut out references links, so i just pointed you that direction with those articles. As to WP's RS, this makes me laugh, because truth be told, I've had somewhat of an impact on creation of WP:ATT, WP:BLP, as well as WP:V being rewritten, and modifications to RS's. While in theory they contain many good guidelines, what's faulty in them is their not being evenhandedly enforced. And this goes for WP:NOR, NPOV and few others as well.
Me personally, I'd recommend this as a guideline. The problem with WP's policies are, they were written by somebody who learned Journalism ethics in Journalism School, and we know what the value of that is. The state of Journalistic ethics only deteriorates more year after year. Journalists make a mockery of their pretense to it, and in WP you have people with no ethics whatsoever not even pretending to be ethical. So I don't have a high opinion of WP's or for that matter any kind of broadcast or written Journalism standards at all. I'm only interested in historiography, the historical method, and rules of evidence.
In the morning, I'll take a look at the entire issue. It seems to go beyond just hate crimes speech,and homosexuals are already defined as a protected class. But as we demonstrated on the Talk:Homosexuality page yesterday, the Law doesn't even clearly define what a homosexual is. The last homosexual homicide in the US was in 2004, according to FBI stats, yet it was neither a male or female who was murdered. So unless the killer was another transexual (i.e. "the same", as what is commonly known as the meaning of the term "homo") creating a protected class & requiring the compiliation of statisitcs of hate crimes is just more pure garbage. RobS 00:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Okay, everyone's had ample time to come up with anything to support the statement in question and no one has done so. All the single citation says is that opponents argue that the hate crimes legislation would prohibit criticism of homosexuality (I'm still not sure how get this interpretation, we have hate crime legislation covering race and religion in many places and it's still not a crime to say bad things about blacks, Jews, and other minorities). So I'm going to add "opponents argue" to the beginning of the statement. I really don't see how this can be a controversial edit. If you're going to blatantly say that unlike Wikipedia (where does Wikipedia do this exactly?) Conservapedia does not state the opinions fo journalists as fact, you should really stick by it. And I would hope that it wouldn't be taken to mean that the opinions of anyone who isn't a journalist can be stated as fact. That would be downright silly. PortlyMort 15:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

"Experts"? Is that really the best you can do? sigh. Well, I'll add "some" to that. Clearly not all "experts" agree on that statement. The single "source" certainly doesn't support that assertion. PortlyMort 09:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

gas tax

I also added that it was "certain" Democrats who proposed a 50 cent increase in the gas tax. From the article cited it appears it was only one (and I'm quite sure the proposal has gone nowhere). Hardly a part of the overall Democrat agenda. PortlyMort 09:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
It's not really "certain Democrats," it's the Democratic Leadership that proposed a 50 cent per gallon gas tax increase which impacts poor people trying to hold and job and get to work most. RobS 11:07, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
According to the article it was a single committee chair (admittedly of the committee most relevant to the issue); saying "Democratic Leadership" seems to imply Pelosi, Reid, and other high-ranking Democrats supported it, and I see no evidence that they did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PortlyMort (talk)
As a general rule Committe Chairs do not go against the wishes of the Majority Leader or Speaker, particularly in the House where rules are different (in the Senate, Committee Chairs get thier position by Seniority, in the House it is by appointment, and only trusted Chairs who will do the bidding of the Speaker get the appointment). If Conyers was going against Pelosi & Hoyer, it would be a big news item. Thier silence and the media's silence, only gives them cover, whereas if it's an unpopular measure, they got the fall guy set up and it becomes the blame game. And in the blame game, it will come back to Pelosi, Hoyer, et al the House Democratic Conference Leadership. The Committee Chairs do not act on their own. RobS 20:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I'm not expert here, but it seems to me that committee chairs have quite a bit of independent power within their committees. Now, if the measure were ever to get out of committee (and if it does I'll eat my hat and and add another 15,000 articles to Conservapedia personally) that would be a different story. This looks like posturing to me. The whole idea of raising taxes on gasoline and using the money to fund alternative energy in an effort to get us off foreign oil (and oil in general, eventually) has been widely discussed among liberals. (They often make comparisons to Europe, where gas is enormously more expensive, but ignore factors like the geographic differences between a small country like Britain and a large one like the U.S., among other things.) If they could find a way to apply it just to the rich the concept would probably have some support in Congress, but they know that this would screw the poor much more, and would send Congress back to the Republicans in a heartbeat. This seems to be a way to let Dingell propose it, let it die quickly in committee so they can appeal to the liberal base by looking like they're doing something without actually having to enact anything or deal with the consequences. Pelosi would not want to touch this; Dingell, one of the longest-serving Congressmen in history, is pretty safe. PortlyMort 14:55, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
All that dances around the fact that (a) the Democratic Leadership proposed a consumption tax at a point in time that will disproportionately hurt the same very people whom allegedly, according to themselves and media allies, they were elected to help, and (b) we are not here to promote lies and coverups. RobS 15:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
And that dances around the fact that the "Democratic Leadership" you cite is a single person: Rep. Dingell. PortlyMort 17:24, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
There is no indication he's acted on his own, going public, since Pelosi, Hoyer & whatsisname the whip haven't rejected it. RobS 17:27, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Have they indicated they support it? Seems were both drawing conclusions here. You assume their apparent silence is tacit approval; I don't, since they obviously don't comment on every item brought up in every committee. PortlyMort 17:34, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Oh, so Dingell goes public with an idea to drag the poor over the coals which needs a majority in the House, Pelosi et al remain mum on the concept, and that means she opposes it. Don't think so... RobS 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
You don't think so, but you don't know. That's my point. And what has Bush et al said about it? Nothing? I guess they approve too maybe? PortlyMort 17:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
In reading these articles (probably in WP, too) you will see a primary characteristic of difference between Dem & Repub, left & right, lib & conserv, is on the tax issue. Dems almost always under all circumstances advocate and promote higher taxation. Repubs almost always under all circumstances advocate tax cuts. It is not surprising, therefore, after 12 years in the wilderness, one of the first things Dems would do is propose tax increases.
As to the absurd reference to Bush, what? Bush is of like-mind with Pelosi et al? Go ahead, promote that idea if you wish; let's see if you get any beleivers. RobS 14:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)


"Crongressional." Can't edit the article for whatever reason. ZCE

Fixed. --Crocoite 18:11, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Democrat Party

Why are we using the term "Democratic Party"? The preferred, non-liberal-biased term is "Democrat Party" (or "Democrat congressman", or "Democrat Agenda", etc.) "Democratic" is bad because it evokes small-d democratic (which they are not), whereas "Democrat" emphasizes "rat" (which they are). In fact, using the loaded term "Democratic Party" is one of the main stream media's indications of liberal bias.-- why do we emulate? Can we get consensus for change?

Wow, I bet you're real proud of yourself. Don't quit your day job though. Jros83 13:25, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (seriously your humor is contrived and boring)
Nah. Rob Smith 22:46, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
The official name of the party is clearly the "Democratic Party." No point in stooping to factual inacuracies.
To Mr. Comedian who can't sign his name: Wow, I bet you're real proud of yourself. Don't quit your day job though. Jros83 13:25, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (seriously your humor is contrived and boring)
Is there any source for this? Doesn't this arise from some people getting confused between nouns and adjectives? It never occurred to me that people were mangling grammar to make the point asserted. Wschact 08:50, 13 August 2012 (EDT)


I wrote the history sections and previously posted some of it to Wikipedia and Citizendium. RJJensen 19:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

drop florida stuff

The Florida stuff is not very important now so I dropped it RJJensen 22:05, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Some Factual Innacuracies

There were a few things I noticed on the main page that I thought should be changed (just for the sake of factual correctness) - 4 of the last 10 presidential terms have been democrats, not 3. - the cost of the proposed healthcare bill is 65 billion, not 1 trillion - there is the contradiction with gay marriage. Under "gay rights" it says dems don't support Gay Marriage, but right under that it says they do. - Again, for the sake of honesty, the original (Jeffersonian) Democratic Party never became "defunct." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheoryMaker (talk)

For argument's sake, how do you (as a Democrat) come off chatting all righteous like?
-1 update since the numbers have changed and you notified the world of your intentions, make the change
-2 that figure you gave 65 billion healthcare, that wouldn't even cover 1 year. Trillion was way low.
-3 the majority of Democrats are for gay rights,
-4 how much is the Democratic party paying you? I mean come down off your high horse. Honesty, integrity, morals has long been dead, given way to far left ideologues. You might as go by what your leaders say "New Democrats." A new breed of patriotism, patriotism to self, glory to thy money. You are right, the party of slavery hasn't changed a bit.
In retrospect,--Jpatt 21:06, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Updated Healthcare section

Updated healthcare section to include the passing of ObamaCare/The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Someone might want to have a quick check over, I'm inexperienced when it comes to editing but I think it looks alright AdamV 15:31, 5 December 2010 (EST)

Party name and nationwide House vote total

All of the primary and secondary sources indicate that the name of the party is "Democratic party" so the version I found must be an attempt at humor. Also, there was a prior version that correctly noted that the Democrats won the popular Presidential 2016 vote but the Republicans won the Electoral College and that the nationwide total of House votes was higher for the Democrats than for the Republicans, but that Republicans won in more Congressional districts. This was removed by an edit summary calling it "nonsense" when in fact it is true. So, I am reverting it back. Thanks, JDano (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2017 (EST)

Actually, Mr. Schlalfly added the version about "Democrat Party." Check the history. He did it relatively recently. I don't recall doing anything about the House vote totals. I think the current version is fine. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2017 (EST)
If you look at the reference I added, it is clear that "Democratic Party" is the correct formal name. The removed passage is contradictory. It says that "Democrat Party" is the correct name and then says that it is used by Republicans to drive home the point that the party is not democratic. I am not trying to change the Democrat Party article which is a political essay and not an encyclopedia article. I am going to add the vote totals and a cross-reference to Democratic Parties in other countries as a compromise. Rob removed the prior passage.
I also removed the footnotes about illegal voting in the lead paragraph. There is nothing to indicate that the illegal votes (for example by "dead voters") were cast for Democratic or Republican candidates. You can move this illegal voting material to the article about the 2016 election if you wish. JDano (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2017 (EST)
The name may be the formal name, but one could argue it is better referred to as "Democrat." I changed the wording so both of us can hopefully agree on it. I have no problem with mentioning House vote totals, but is there a better source than Ballotpedia, another online wiki? Also, the fact that the districts may have been gerrymandered is irrelevant. It happens all the time and is not a necessarily bad thing.
As for the illegal immigrant votes, I cited three references. Is that not enough? Of course, nobody's going to find conclusive evidence of illegals voting if they don't investigate. Do you really think California wants to investigate so it can loose 800,000 Dem votes? Not just Breitbart people believe this is possible. People like Bill O'Reilly or a political scientist professor at a university[7] think (with the extremely lax driver's license laws and voter ID laws) illegal immigrants could have voted. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2017 (EST)
Do you honestly believe that voting irregularities is a unique characteristic of the Democratic Party? Last night, I added a section saying that as a policy, Democrats want to make voting easier. Over history, both Republicans and Democrats have engaged in some shady tactics, but neither party has "officially" engaged in voter fraud. I hope that President Trump conducts the promised investigation. If the investigators find that it happened and that the Democrats did it, it should go into the lede. JDano (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2017 (EST)
I'm not saying the Dems officially participate in voter fraud nor am I saying only they are necessarily guilty of it. What I'm saying is their policies lead to voter fraud so that 800,000 illegal immigrants potentially voted. Because these illegal voters would overwhelmingly vote Dem, the party and its supporters not inclined to investigate it. It's politics. But because they love to mention that HRC won the popular vote, we should mention this fact. We should not suppress this info, I say. If the Trump Administration or whoever finds that 800,000 illegals did not vote, then we should remove the mention. But while it is inconclusive, it is probably best to include it. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2017 (EST)

1990'sguy, athough Ballotpedia uses wiki software, it is not open to editing. There are 60 paid staff members who keep it up to date. So, it is a reliable source. JDano (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Fair enough then. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2017 (EST)


Intro needs revision and updating, and cut down. Most of the material can be either integrated into the article, spunoff elsewhere, or embalmed in footnotes. What say ye? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:52, 27 September 2018 (EDT)

As long as the current info is re-added elsewhere on CP, preferably but not necessarily in the article body. The most important info should be kept in the intro, obviously. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2018 (EDT)
Will do. What about the contrast in the opening paragraph between positions of the Democrat party and Republican party? The Intro is quite lengthy; IMO generally speaking, Intros should be kept short and sweet - a summary of the contents below, with "teasers," so to speak. Detailed and lengthy Intros could actually discourage delving any further into the contents. I think the contrast with the GOP can be achieved either by clicking on the GOP link, and/or put in a subsections. This is actually the Democratic Party article and should focus on it's ideology and history. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:16, 27 September 2018 (EDT)
I agree. We should definitely give a *brief* description of the Dems' extremist views in the intro, but we shouldn't include the GOP's positions here. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2018 (EDT)