Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Democratic Party

2008-01-08T16:19:10Z

Nimble: /* ic */

== Criticism ==

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. --[[User:Dave3172|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.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|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.)--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 04:43, 21 April 2007 (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. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

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

== ic ==

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. [[User:Myk|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 {{Unsigned|User:MrRandom}}

::Your bet is on, my good man. I got $100 cash that says '''no Republicans''' were slave owners. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:05, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ulysses S. Grant owned a slave (http://www.american-presidents.org/2007/02/grant-was-slave-owner.html). E-mail me for the address to send the $100. --[[User:Nimble|Nimble]] 11:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

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

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|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. [[User:Stargrave|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.[[User:Idealist101|Idealist101]]

== 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. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. [[User:RobS|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"). [[User:Richard|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. [[User:Mulp|Mulp]] 00:46, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Have you read [[Adam Smith]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:48, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::See here for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Productive_and_unproductive_labour&diff=prev&oldid=106451910], 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."''''' [[User:RobS|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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal#Liberal_outside_of_the_US] comparing the American use of the term vs its use outside the US. [[User:RobS|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? [[User:GodlessLiberal|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Richard|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. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:56, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

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? [[User:Myk|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.--[[User:Conservateur|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?--[[User:Dave3172|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?--[[User:Conservateur|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. [[User:DanH|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.--[[User:Conservateur|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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=prev&oldid=33991] A lenghty edit war ensued, and the material not only is still in the article, it has its own subhead.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq_War#Opinion_polls] 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. [[User:RobS|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.--[[User:Conservateur|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. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

#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? [[User:DanH|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.--[[User:Conservateur|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? --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:27, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

===Please===
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. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18]'''
This is the "Congressional job Approval poll" not the "democratic congress approval poll". [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:Hmm, let's see, who controls the US House of Reps & the Senate.... [[User:RobS|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). [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
: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. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 13:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==History==

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 <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=231> --[[User:1048247|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. [[User:RobS|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.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, good points. No problem. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversions ==

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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:He died I think over a month or two before VE day.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk: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.? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 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.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk: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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Jros83|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. [http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_wtm.html] [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Jros83|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Jros83|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|RobS]]

== 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. [[User:JamesBenjamin|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. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:19, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

#You shouldn't have deleted the sources, just because you disagree with how they're interpreted.
#Unless you are completely new to wiki collaboration, you already know that [[edit war]]ring is counter-productive. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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 [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia| 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. [[User:PortlyMort|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:PortlyMort|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 21:46, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

::Here's some cites:
::*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
::*[[Hate crime#References]]
::*Plus what's on the mainspace here. And to trash them, you are going to have to do better than, "those are just a bunch of paranoid, intollerant, right-wing ''[[Dominionism#The_.22Christer.22_controversy|Christer]]'' sites." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:53, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:::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. [[User:PortlyMort|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:PortlyMort|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#External_criticism:_authenticity_and_provenance 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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:PortlyMort|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. [[User:PortlyMort|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. [[User:PortlyMort|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. [[User:RobS|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. {{Unsigned|PortlyMort}}

::::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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:PortlyMort|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:PortlyMort|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:PortlyMort|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... [[User:RobS|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? [[User:PortlyMort|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. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Typo==
"Crongressional." Can't edit the article for whatever reason. [[User:ZCE|ZCE]]
:Fixed. --[[User:Crocoite|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?
:Nah. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Democratic Party

2008-01-07T00:19:38Z

Nimble: I removed the second sentence because it refers to the first sentence but they are two different polls. Also the second sentence is wrong. Disapproval of Congress in 1974 was 30-35%.

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

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is generally seen as being politically between center and [[leftist | left]] of center, while the rival [[Republican Party]] is positioned to the [[rightist | right]] of center (see [[political spectrum theory]]). Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. The Democratic Party is the recipient of 85% of all [[Corporation|corporate]] lobbying [[money|cash]] according to ''Roll Call'' newspaper's top-20 list of corporate influence donations.<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010753 Comfy With K Street Democrats tell business to pay up or else], Stephen Moore, OpinionJournal.com, October 19, 2007.</ref>

The Democrats currently control the [[110th United States Congress]] together with the majority of State governorships and legislatures.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> According to a Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35 percent for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> However, Democrats have served out only three of the last ten presidential terms. The Zogby Poll reports Democrats in the US Congress currently have an 11% approval rating.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/rzi Reuters/Zogby Poll], September 19, 2007.</ref> ''Investor's Business Daily'' remarked, "For all the promises of its new Democratic leaders, Congress seems truly interested in doing only one thing: surrendering in [[Iraq]]. No wonder its public approval ratings have sunk below the president's." <ref>[http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264123134498383&kw=For,all,the,promises The Do-One-Thing Congress], ''Investor's Business Daily, May 15, 2007.</ref>

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

In 2007, the Democratic National Committee put forward a scheme to violate the principal of equal and proportionate representation in [[Florida]]'s [[2008_Presidential_Election#Democratic_Strategy|2008 Presidential Primary Election]] for delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convenetion.<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersberg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> The ''St. Petersberg Times'' quotes a letter from Florida Senator [[Bill Nelson]] and others Democratic members of the Florida Congressional delegation sent to DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]] protesting a move by the Committee to violate individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]],
{{Cquote|It always has been a priority of our party to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote," the letter said. "We would hope the DNC will continue to honor this right.}}

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

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

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

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

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

==Policies and criticism==

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

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

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

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

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]]. <ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

In addition to the Democratic party's reported stance to "tax the rich," some members of the Congressional Democratic Leadership have proposed a 50 cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline which would disproportionately hurt those least able to absorb the cost at a time when worldwide gas prices are at historic highs. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dingell-to-propose-50-cent-gasoline-tax-increase-2007-07-07.html Dingell to propose 50 cent gasoline tax increase], By Chris Good, ''The Hill'', July 07, 2007.</ref>

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic. <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by ''[[Fox News]]'' released in October 2007 found 1 in 5 Democrats-nearly 10 million voters, think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]]<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

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

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

===Healthcare===
The Democrat fondness for heavy government intervention into the marketplace and social engineering means that a significant proportion of their base and of their candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election ideologically favor introducing a system of [[socialized healthcare]]; regardless of the crippling tax burden this would require to sustain itself and the low standard of care achieved by socialized health programs in other countries compared to the United States. However, many first world nations such as France and Britain do have socialized healthcare systems, and are ranked 1 and 18 by the [[World Health Organization]]<ref>http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html</ref>, respectively, compared to the United States' rank of 37. Therefore, many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal healthcare]] to be a priority because of the appeal to nearly 50 million voters without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Among the leading proponents for this idea include [[Barack Obama|Sen. Barack Obama]] and [[John Edwards|Sen. John Edwards]]; the latter formerly being the running mate to [[John Kerry|Sen. John Kerry]] in the [[2004 Presidential Election]].

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Democratic Presidents==
[[Image:Carter.jpg|right|200px]]
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)

==See also==
*[[Phonemarks]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

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

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

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]