Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Liberal tricks

2008-07-01T21:59:36Z

Proteus77:

Here are some common [[liberal]] tricks that many people fall for:

# insert a [[liberal]] assumption into a question, as illustrated by the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?!"
# distract and disrupt reasoned discussion, as in stating irrelevant claims, inconsequential tales of personal experience, or false outrage
# claim expertise beyond one's area of expertise, as in a "Dr." or professor implying that he is an expert in an area beyond his specialty
# make arguments that have superficial appeal to the dimwitted, but are actually nonsensical and probably not believed by the liberal himself<ref>For example, one might conclude that [[Michael Moore]] makes silly statements designed to appeal to the less intelligent.</ref>
# pretend that liberals do not have a political point of view, but are just being reasonable<ref>For example, people who insist on promoting [[abortion]] with mandatory taxpayer funding claim they are merely "pro-choice".</ref>
# exaggerate praise for fellow liberals;<ref>For example, liberal praise by law professors for [[Barack Obama]] borders on the absurd.</ref> pretend that atheism equals intelligence
# in court decisions, hold in favor of the [[conservative]] side by using [[liberal]] reasons that will be cited for liberal outcomes in ''future'' cases<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education|Everson v. Board of Ed.]]''</ref>
# [[liberal]]s [[liberal friendship|befriend]] you so you should become liberal (why don't they become [[conservative]]?)
# "live and let live!" except when it comes to praying aloud in school, keeping the money you earn, building on your own property, and every other liberal issue
# it doesn't hurt to try! (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors such as pre-marital sex, worshipping many gods/no gods, homosexuality, or abortion)
# everyone else supposedly believes in something so it must be right
# your [[parent]]s aren't cool; [[Hollywood values]] are cool; [[professor values]] are brilliant; blindly follow your government
# there is a shortage of everything we want
# [[prayer]] is for dummies, or is antiquated
# [[children|kids]] are getting smarter than old folks
# smear your adversary with a highly offensive accusation or insinuation
# call someone a [[racist]] if he criticizes a ''liberal'' having a different skin color
# demonize [[conservative]]s and pretend they don't care about regular people or try to make people believe that the homosexuals and the mexicans are regular people and should be treated as such.
# if you don't like it (something offensive on [[television]]), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for ''if you don't like [[whale]]s being killed, don't watch them being killed; if you don't like negroes getting lynched, don't watch them getting lynched'').
# the poor are blameless because they have nothing; the rich are to blame because they have everything.
# accusing conservatives of libel, but forgetting that truth is the perfect defense against libel.
# not believing in [[jesus]] is cool, only rednecks and freaks believe in jesus.

(please add to list)

== Example ==

Here is an example of an actual attempt at [[liberal tricks]] that was posted on this very page:

{{QuoteBox|This article, and many others on a similar line, are a sad demonstration of incipient mental illness. Andrew Schlafly appears to be an educated man - after all, he edited a legal journal which was later edited by [[Barack Obama]] (I assume that Andy's tenure wasn't a result of [[affirmative action]] in favour of the narrow minded and the bigoted) - yet his denunciations of 'liberalism' get ever wilder and more paranoid as his definition of that beknighted state become ever more encompassing.}}

The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a [[conservative]] by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting '''liberal trick''' #15 above. To someone unfamiliar with '''liberal tricks''', this can be upsetting and intimidating. But once one realizes that this is a basic trick from the [[liberal]] playbook, its silliness and ineffectiveness becomes obvious. The [[liberal]]'s foolish tactic is then revealed for what it really is.

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

{{liberalism}}

Liberal tricks

2008-06-29T23:26:22Z

Proteus77:

Here are some common [[liberal]] tricks that many people fall for:

# insert a [[liberal]] assumption into a question, as illustrated by the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?!"
# distract and disrupt reasoned discussion, as in stating irrelevant claims, inconsequential tales of personal experience, or false outrage
# claim expertise beyond one's area of expertise, as in a "Dr." or professor implying that he is an expert in an area beyond his specialty
# make arguments that have superficial appeal to the dimwitted, but are actually nonsensical and probably not believed by the liberal himself<ref>For example, one might conclude that [[Michael Moore]] makes silly statements designed to appeal to the less intelligent.</ref>
# pretend that liberals do not have a political point of view, but are just being reasonable<ref>For example, people who insist on promoting [[abortion]] with mandatory taxpayer funding claim they are merely "pro-choice".</ref>
# exaggerate praise for fellow liberals;<ref>For example, liberal praise by law professors for [[Barack Obama]] borders on the absurd.</ref> pretend that atheism equals intelligence
# in court decisions, hold in favor of the [[conservative]] side by using [[liberal]] reasons that will be cited for liberal outcomes in ''future'' cases<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education|Everson v. Board of Ed.]]''</ref>
# [[liberal]]s [[liberal friendship|befriend]] you so you should become liberal (why don't they become [[conservative]]?)
# "live and let live!" except when it comes to praying aloud in school, keeping the money you earn, building on your own property, and every other liberal issue
# it doesn't hurt to try! (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors such as pre-marital sex, worshipping many gods/no gods, homosexuality, or abortion)
# everyone else supposedly believes in something so it must be right
# your [[parent]]s aren't cool; [[Hollywood values]] are cool; [[professor values]] are brilliant; blindly follow your government
# there is a shortage of everything we want
# [[prayer]] is for dummies, or is antiquated
# [[children|kids]] are getting smarter than old folks
# smear your adversary with a highly offensive accusation or insinuation
# call someone a [[racist]] if he criticizes a ''liberal'' having a different skin color
# demonize [[conservative]]s and pretend they don't care about regular people
# if you don't like it (something offensive on [[television]]), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for ''if you don't like [[whale]]s being killed, don't watch them being killed; if you don't like negroes getting lynched, don't watch them getting lynched'').
# the poor are blameless because they have nothing; the rich are to blame because they have everything.
# accusing conservatives of libel, but forgetting that truth is the perfect defense against libel.
# not believing in [[jesus]] is cool, only rednecks and freaks believe in jesus.

(please add to list)

== Example ==

Here is an example of an actual attempt at [[liberal tricks]] that was posted on this very page:

{{QuoteBox|This article, and many others on a similar line, are a sad demonstration of incipient mental illness. Andrew Schlafly appears to be an educated man - after all, he edited a legal journal which was later edited by [[Barack Obama]] (I assume that Andy's tenure wasn't a result of [[affirmative action]] in favour of the narrow minded and the bigoted) - yet his denunciations of 'liberalism' get ever wilder and more paranoid as his definition of that beknighted state become ever more encompassing.}}

The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a [[conservative]] by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting '''liberal trick''' #15 above. To someone unfamiliar with '''liberal tricks''', this can be upsetting and intimidating. But once one realizes that this is a basic trick from the [[liberal]] playbook, its silliness and ineffectiveness becomes obvious. The [[liberal]]'s foolish tactic is then revealed for what it really is.

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

{{liberalism}}

Liberal tricks

2008-06-29T23:24:08Z

Proteus77:

Here are some common [[liberal]] tricks that many people fall for:

# insert a [[liberal]] assumption into a question, as illustrated by the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?!"
# distract and disrupt reasoned discussion, as in stating irrelevant claims, inconsequential tales of personal experience, or false outrage
# claim expertise beyond one's area of expertise, as in a "Dr." or professor implying that he is an expert in an area beyond his specialty
# make arguments that have superficial appeal to the dimwitted, but are actually nonsensical and probably not believed by the liberal himself<ref>For example, one might conclude that [[Michael Moore]] makes silly statements designed to appeal to the less intelligent.</ref>
# pretend that liberals do not have a political point of view, but are just being reasonable<ref>For example, people who insist on promoting [[abortion]] with mandatory taxpayer funding claim they are merely "pro-choice".</ref>
# exaggerate praise for fellow liberals;<ref>For example, liberal praise by law professors for [[Barack Obama]] borders on the absurd.</ref> pretend that atheism equals intelligence
# in court decisions, hold in favor of the [[conservative]] side by using [[liberal]] reasons that will be cited for liberal outcomes in ''future'' cases<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education|Everson v. Board of Ed.]]''</ref>
# [[liberal]]s [[liberal friendship|befriend]] you so you should become liberal (why don't they become [[conservative]]?)
# "live and let live!" except when it comes to praying aloud in school, keeping the money you earn, building on your own property, and every other liberal issue
# it doesn't hurt to try! (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors such as pre-marital sex, worshipping many gods/no gods, homosexuality, or abortion)
# everyone else supposedly believes in something so it must be right
# your [[parent]]s aren't cool; [[Hollywood values]] are cool; [[professor values]] are brilliant; blindly follow your government
# there is a shortage of everything we want
# [[prayer]] is for dummies, or is antiquated
# [[children|kids]] are getting smarter than old folks
# smear your adversary with a highly offensive accusation or insinuation
# call someone a [[racist]] if he criticizes a ''liberal'' having a different skin color
# demonize [[conservative]]s and pretend they don't care about regular people
# if you don't like it (something offensive on [[television]]), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for ''if you don't like [[whale]]s being killed, don't watch them being killed'').
# the poor are blameless because they have nothing; the rich are to blame because they have everything.
# accusing conservatives of libel, but forgetting that truth is the perfect defense against libel.
# not believing in [[jesus]] is cool, only rednecks and freaks believe in jesus.

(please add to list)

== Example ==

Here is an example of an actual attempt at [[liberal tricks]] that was posted on this very page:

{{QuoteBox|This article, and many others on a similar line, are a sad demonstration of incipient mental illness. Andrew Schlafly appears to be an educated man - after all, he edited a legal journal which was later edited by [[Barack Obama]] (I assume that Andy's tenure wasn't a result of [[affirmative action]] in favour of the narrow minded and the bigoted) - yet his denunciations of 'liberalism' get ever wilder and more paranoid as his definition of that beknighted state become ever more encompassing.}}

The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a [[conservative]] by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting '''liberal trick''' #15 above. To someone unfamiliar with '''liberal tricks''', this can be upsetting and intimidating. But once one realizes that this is a basic trick from the [[liberal]] playbook, its silliness and ineffectiveness becomes obvious. The [[liberal]]'s foolish tactic is then revealed for what it really is.

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

{{liberalism}}

Judicial activism

2008-05-14T16:27:39Z

Proteus77:

'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]] rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

The [[Warren Court]] was prominent for engaging in judicial activism or, in a stronger version of the term, [[judicial supremacy]]. The judicial supremacy of the Warren Court claimed that segregation was not constitutional in the case [[Brown v. Board of Education]] and so therefore unilaterally destroyed an institution that was an integral part of society and widely supported in the areas where segregation was legal. The Warren Court imposed its political opinions, forcing schools to become desegregated. This action caused minorities in the United States, specifically African-Americans, to be legally equal with white Americans. This type of judicial supremacy is typical of liberal courts trying to give every person in the United States their rights and liberties guaranteed in the constitution. If the Warren Court had practiced [[Judicial Restraint]], they would have seen that the U.S. constitution and its amendments do not specifically state any requirements regarding education, therefore, the supreme court has no official powers over the states' ability to regulate and maintain their respective educational services. African-Americans were not denied access to public education and so therefore the ruling by the Warren Court is judicial supremacy at its worst.

==See Also==

*[[Judicial Restraint]]
*[[United States Supreme Court]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:judicial activism]]

Judicial activism

2008-05-14T16:27:22Z

Proteus77:

'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]] rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

The [[Warren Court]] was prominent for engaging in judicial activism or, in a stronger version of the term, [[judicial supremacy]]. The judicial supremacy of the Warren Court claimed that segregation was not constitutional in the case [[Brown v. Board of Education]] and so therefore unilaterally destroyed an institution that was an integral part of society and widely supported in the areas where segregation was legal. The Warren Court imposed its political opinions, forcing schools to become desegregated. This action caused minorities in the United States, specifically African-Americans, to be legally equal with white Americans. This type of judicial supremacy is typical of liberal courts trying to give every person in the United States their rights and liberties guaranteed in the constitution. If the Warren Court had practiced [[judicial restraint]], they would have seen that the U.S. constitution and its amendments do not specifically state any requirements regarding education, therefore, the supreme court has no official powers over the states' ability to regulate and maintain their respective educational services. African-Americans were not denied access to public education and so therefore the ruling by the Warren Court is judicial supremacy at its worst.

==See Also==

*[[Judicial Restraint]]
*[[United States Supreme Court]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:judicial activism]]

Judicial activism

2008-05-14T16:20:00Z

Proteus77:

'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]] rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

The [[Warren Court]] was prominent for engaging in judicial activism or, in a stronger version of the term, [[judicial supremacy]]. The judicial supremacy of the Warren Court claimed that segregation was not constitutional in the case [[Brown v. Board of Education]] and so therefore unilaterally destroyed an institution that was an integral part of society and widely supported in the areas where segregation was legal. The Warren Court imposed its political opinions, forcing schools to become desegregated. This action caused minorities in the United States, specifically African-Americans, to be legally equal with white Americans. This type of judicial supremacy is typical of liberal courts trying to give every person in the United States their rights and liberties guaranteed in the constitution.

==See Also==

*[[Judicial Restraint]]
*[[United States Supreme Court]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:judicial activism]]

Judicial activism

2008-05-14T16:19:36Z

Proteus77:

'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]] rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

The [[Warren Court]] was prominent for engaging in judicial activism or, in a stronger version of the term, [[judicial supremacy]]. The judicial supremacy of the Warren Court claimed that segregation was not constitutional in the case [[Brown v Board of Education]] and so therefore unilaterally destroyed an institution that was an integral part of society and widely supported in the areas where segregation was legal. The Warren Court imposed its political opinions, forcing schools to become desegregated. This action caused minorities in the United States, specifically African-Americans, to be legally equal with white Americans. This type of judicial supremacy is typical of liberal courts trying to give every person in the United States their rights and liberties guaranteed in the constitution.

==See Also==

*[[Judicial Restraint]]
*[[United States Supreme Court]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:judicial activism]]

User talk:Proteus77

2008-05-09T16:20:14Z

Proteus77:

{{Welcome|sig= [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:12, 9 May 2008 (EDT)}}

Users are encouraged to copy articles from wikipedia -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:10, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Please stop coping articles from wikipedia, if you do this one more time I will block you -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:17, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Hate crime

2008-05-07T05:12:08Z

Proteus77:

A '''"hate crime"''' is an action held to involve the illicit expression of hatred to the detriment of another person. Such a wide definition combines religious, ethnic or lifestyle persecution.
==Free speech and the Homosexual Agenda==

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

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

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

As part of the [[homosexual agenda]], the [[gay rights]] movement has attempted to equate racism and [[anti-Semitism]] with the condemnation of homosexual sin. To do this, they must of course gloss over the fact that race is 100% inherited and immutable. And that religious and ethnic persecution against Jews involved a 6 million person [[Holocaust]] that included the deaths of not only Jews, but also homosexuals, whose lifestyle was seen as vulgar by prominent German politicians (see [[genocide]] and [[ethnic cleansing]]).

Nonetheless, the strategy of anti-goodness crusaders is to insist that condemnation of sin is a type of "prejudice" equivalent to a civil rights violation. They want people of conscience, who already condemn antisemitism and racism, to regard any critique of homosexuality as an expression of "hate".

This is a perverse misinterpretation of a sermon by Jesus, who told people not to "hate" their enemies. What hate crimes legislation ignores is that Jesus never hesitated to condemn sin and frequently criticized wrongdoers. So there can be nothing wrong with pointing out evils and telling people to stop committing sin. This is not "hate" but an expression of love.

A ladder to legislate social acceptance and promotion of a lifestyle would be as follows:

* '''Bottom Rung:''' hate crime legislation to recognize and accept the lifestyle.
* '''Middle Rung:''' anti-discrimination legislation to favor and promote the lifestyle.
* '''Top Rung:''' [[affirmative action]] to fully promote the lifestyle.

The new [[Speaker of the House]] for the 2007-2008 [[Congress]], [[Nancy Pelosi]], sought to pass hate crime legislation proposed in the prior session of [[Congress]] in H.R.3132. [[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]] was then introduced by [[Democrats]] in the new session [[110th Congress]] that began in 2007.

In July 2007, [[Ted Kennedy]] bypassed a committee vote and attached hate crimes legislation to a massive defense appropriation bill requested by the President, in an effort to compel him to sign the hate crimes legislation.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702 Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill] 'Shameless attempt to push [[homosexual agenda]] ... by exploiting soldiers', Bob Unruh, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 17, 2007.</ref>

== Claims of Hate Crimes ==

It is claimed that about 1100 hate crimes against homosexuals or their property occurred in 2004.<ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html Crime in the United States 2004]</ref> <ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable4.htm Table 4 Offense Type by Bias Motivation] </ref> But most of those offenses occurred against property rather than individuals, often the result of drugs or alcohol. Only a tiny percentage even involved aggravated assault or worse, and those classifications are not based on any proof at trial.<ref>''Id.''</ref> 74% of hate crimes are either crimes against property (e.g., theft, vandalism or graffiti) or a vague "intimidation".<ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_33 Table 2.33 Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Offense Type]</ref>

In regards to [[Homosexuality and Homicide|homosexuality and homicide]], ''The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers'' by Michael Newton reports the following regarding the issue of homosexuality and homocides:
{{cquote|Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.<ref>The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton, page 103</ref>}}

The world-renowned pathologist Dr. [[William Eckert]] wrote regarding homosexual homocides the following:
{{cquote| Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings...<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref>}}
[[Image:Assocchurch138 yzsodw.jpg|thumb|The [[First Baptist Church in Gravois Mills]] was vandalized and threatened by [[homosexuality|homosexual]] activists and received obscene phone calls. An [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] agent refused to list the incident as a hate crime.]]
On the other hand, national statistics regarding [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] committing hate crimes against heterosexuals may be underreported. For example, the [[First Baptist Church in Gravois Mills]] was vandalized and threatened by homosexual activists and received obscene phone calls. An [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] agent refused to list the incident as a [[hate crime]]. The incident involved an anti-homosexuality [[Bible]] verse on the churches' sign.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats], Bob Baysinger, ''Baptist Press'', Nov 13, 2003.</ref>

The Center for Reclaiming America cited the following account of how a [[hate crimes|hate crime]] statute was egregiously applied to an ex-homosexual:
{{cquote|In Madison, Wisconsin, a recovered homosexual who had left the “gay” lifestyle to start a family got into a heated discussion with an open homosexual about homosexuality at a gas station. The ex-“gay” man, David Ott, was holding his child in his arms during the entire incident, and neither man touched the other. The homosexual activist later told police he had felt threatened by Ott, and local prosecutors charged the man with “disorderly conduct” with a “hate crimes” enhancement.

The “hate crime” aspect, stemming from Ott’s belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, raised the potential fine from $1,000 to $10,000, and jail time went up from a possible 90 days to one year. Fearing the possibility of substantial jail time, Ott settled, and received 50 hours of community service plus a mandatory attendance at “tolerance” sessions conducted by [[lesbianism|lesbians]] at the [[University of Wisconsin at Madison]]. A ground rule for the session was the premise that homosexual behavior is not immoral.

The entire process cost Ott almost $7,000 in legal fees.<ref>http://test.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts/HateCrimes2.pdf</ref>}}

Another example of an alleged anti-homosexual "hate crime" occurred at Columbia University in 2005, when two drunken students scrawled racist and anti-homosexual symbols on a dormitory wall. Initially charged with crimes carrying possible 4-year jail sentences, the charges were later dropped in exchange for some sensitivity training.<ref>[http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/06/12/News/Ruggles.Vandalism.Case.Dismissed-2043702.shtml Ruggles Vandalism Case Dismissed], Elizabeth Kraushar and Eleazar David Meléndez, ''Columbia Spectator'', 6/12/06.</ref> "I am pretty sure [the perpetrator] thought he was playing a joke," said one dormitory resident about the incident.<ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510542 Hate Crime Rocks Columbia’s Campus], Noah S. Bloom, ''The Harvard Crimson'', December 13, 2005.</ref>

There are very few anti-homosexual murders. The most publicized incident, the murder of [[Matthew Shepard]], was the result of severe drug abuse. After the defense attorney failed to exonerate the killers with an argument of self-defense against homosexual advances, the lead killer admitted in jail that homosexuality had nothing to do with his drug-induced murder:<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=3 New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder], ''20/20'', ABC News. Retrieved 22 July 2007.</ref>

:Asked [by ABC News] directly whether [the lead killer] targeted and attacked Shepard because he was gay, McKinney told Vargas, "No. I did not. ... I would say it wasn't a hate crime. All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him."

:But if the attackers were just trying to rob someone to get a drug fix, why did they beat Shepard so savagely?

:[[Prosecutor]] Rerucha attributes McKinney's rage and his savage beating of Shepard to his drug abuse. "The methamphetamine just fueled to this point where there was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by drugs," Rerucha said.

:Dr. Rick Rawson, a professor at UCLA who has studied the link between methamphetamine and violence, tells "20/20" the drug can trigger episodes of violent behavior.

:"In the first weeks after you've stopped using it, the kinds of triggers that can set off an episode are completely unpredictable. It can be: you say a word with the wrong inflection, you touch someone on the shoulder. It's completely unpredictable as to what will set somebody off" Rawson said.

:"If Aaron McKinney had not become involved with methamphetamine, Matthew Shepard would be alive today," Rerucha said.

So what was the basis for the claim that this was a hate crime? According to ABC News, "Prosecutor Rerucha recalls that Shepard's friends ... contacted his office. Rerucha told '20/20,' "They were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Conversely, threats and vandalism by homosexual activists are typically not treated as hate crimes. For example, "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has refused to investigate threats made by homosexual activists against a Missouri Baptist Convention church in the Lake of the Ozarks area."<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats], Bob Baysinger, ''Baptist Press'', Nov 13, 2003.</ref>

==Criminalizing the Gospel==

Art Moore posted this at World Net Daily:

:"We don't want to promote hatred against anyone and are opposed to violence for whatever reason," said Bruce Clemenger, head of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada's Centre for Faith and Public Life. "Our concern, though is that ... courts have not distinguished between the identity of the person and the activity. So sexual orientation refers to both the sexual disposition as well as the activity."

:But homosexual activists contend such a distinction cannot be made with homosexuals any more than it can with matters of race or ethnic origin.

:"The argument of separating the person from the behavior is their concept," insisted Kim Vance, president of Ottawa-based EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere.

:"In reality they are the same thing," Vance said in a WND interview. "That's language that they use to justify [opposition], but it's language that we don't agree with." <ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29328 The Bible as 'hate literature'?], By Art Moore, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 21, 2002.</ref>

What this means is the [[gay rights]] activists want the government to agree with their primary claim, i.e., that homosexuality is a matter of '''identity''' - not a behavior, and certainly not a matter of choice.

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers 'Hate Crime' Laws Threaten Religious Freedom]
*[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0617mcnultyjun17,1,2035460.column?coll=chi-news-col&ctrack=1&cset=true 'What is a hate crime?'], Timothy J. McNulty, From the Public Editor, June 17, 2007.
[[Category:Religious persecution]]

They

2008-05-07T05:06:04Z

Proteus77:

{{uncited}}

'''They''' is a pronoun that is most commonly used as the plural of "he" and/or "she".

Throughout history the word has been used to refer to the plural form of he/she, but also in a singular form when gender is either unknown or unspecified. This has become more pronounced in recent times, with the feminist movement desiring the use of the singular "they" in place of "he" or "she" when gender is unspecified, with the aim of ending perceived bias. [[Conservatives]] view this as a [[politically correct]] alternative pushed by [[liberals]], which is often redundant as "he" has traditionally been used to refer to both men and women because given the fact that women were derived from men and were given to be companions and not equals, they shall forever be described in the vernacular of a phallic nature.

[[category:grammar]]

Liberal tricks

2008-05-07T04:58:01Z

Proteus77:

Here are some common [[liberal]] tricks that many people fall for:

# distract and disrupt reasoned discussion, as in stating irrelevant claims, inconsequential tales of personal experience, or false outrage
# claim expertise beyond one's area of expertise, as in a "Dr." or professor implying that he is an expert in an area beyond his specialty
# make arguments that have superficial appeal to the dimwitted, but are actually nonsensical and probably not believed by the liberal himself<ref>For example, one might conclude that [[Michael Moore]] makes silly statements designed to appeal to the less intelligent.</ref>
# pretend that liberals do not have a political point of view, but are just being reasonable<ref>For example, people who insist on promoting [[abortion]] with mandatory taxpayer funding claim they are merely "pro-choice".</ref>
# exaggerate praise for fellow liberals;<ref>For example, liberal praise by law professors for [[Barack Obama]] borders on the absurd.</ref> pretend that atheism equals intelligence
# in court decisions, hold in favor of the [[conservative]] side by using [[liberal]] reasons that will be cited for liberal outcomes in ''future'' cases<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education|Everson v. Board of Ed.]]''</ref>
# [[liberal]]s [[liberal friendship|befriend]] you so you should become liberal (why don't they become [[conservative]]?)
# "live and let live!" except when it comes to praying aloud in school, keeping the money you earn, building on your own property, and every other liberal issue
# it doesn't hurt to try! (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors such as pre-marital sex, worshipping many gods/no gods, homosexuality, or abortion/birth control)
# everyone else supposedly believes in something so it must be right
# your [[parent]]s aren't cool; [[Hollywood values]] are cool; [[professor values]] are brilliant; blindly follow your government
# there is a shortage of everything we want
# [[prayer]] is for dummies, or is antiquated
# [[children|kids]] are getting smarter than old folks
# smear your adversary with a highly offensive accusation or insinuation
# call someone a [[racist]] if he criticizes a ''liberal'' having a different skin color
# demonize [[conservative]]s and pretend they don't care about regular people
# if you don't like it (something offensive on [[television]]), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for ''if you don't like [[whale]]s being killed, don't watch them being killed'').

(please add to list)

== Example ==

Here is an example of an actual attempt at [[liberal tricks]] that was posted on this very page:

{{QuoteBox|This article, and many others on a similar line, are a sad demonstration of incipient mental illness. Andrew Schlafly appears to be an educated man - after all, he edited a legal journal which was later edited by [[Barack Obama]] (I assume that Andy's tenure wasn't a result of [[affirmative action]] in favour of the narrow minded and the bigoted) - yet his denunciations of 'liberalism' get ever wilder and more paranoid as his definition of that beknighted state become ever more encompassing.}}

The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a [[conservative]] by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting '''liberal trick''' #15 above. To someone unfamiliar with '''liberal tricks''', this can be upsetting and intimidating. But once one realizes that this is a basic trick from the [[liberal]] playbook, its silliness and ineffectiveness becomes obvious. The [[liberal]]'s foolish tactic is then revealed for what it really is.

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

{{liberalism}}

Liberal tricks

2008-05-07T04:55:04Z

Proteus77:

Here are some common [[liberal]] tricks that many people fall for:

# distract and disrupt reasoned discussion, as in stating irrelevant claims, inconsequential tales of personal experience, or false outrage
# claim expertise beyond one's area of expertise, as in a "Dr." or professor implying that he is an expert in an area beyond his specialty
# make arguments that have superficial appeal to the dimwitted, but are actually nonsensical and probably not believed by the liberal himself<ref>For example, one might conclude that [[Michael Moore]] makes silly statements designed to appeal to the less intelligent.</ref>
# pretend that liberals do not have a political point of view, but are just being reasonable<ref>For example, people who insist on promoting [[abortion]] with mandatory taxpayer funding claim they are merely "pro-choice".</ref>
# exaggerate praise for fellow liberals;<ref>For example, liberal praise by law professors for [[Barack Obama]] borders on the absurd.</ref> pretend that atheism equals intelligence
# in court decisions, hold in favor of the [[conservative]] side by using [[liberal]] reasons that will be cited for liberal outcomes in ''future'' cases<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education|Everson v. Board of Ed.]]''</ref>
# [[liberal]]s [[liberal friendship|befriend]] you so you should become liberal (why don't they become [[conservative]]?)
# "live and let live!" except when it comes to praying aloud in school, keeping the money you earn, building on your own property, and every other liberal issue
# it doesn't hurt to try! (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors)
# everyone else supposedly believes in something so it must be right
# your [[parent]]s aren't cool; [[Hollywood values]] are cool; [[professor values]] are brilliant; blindly follow your government
# there is a shortage of everything we want
# [[prayer]] is for dummies, or is antiquated
# [[children|kids]] are getting smarter than old folks
# smear your adversary with a highly offensive accusation or insinuation
# call someone a [[racist]] if he criticizes a ''liberal'' having a different skin color
# demonize [[conservative]]s and pretend they don't care about regular people
# if you don't like it (something offensive on [[television]]), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for ''if you don't like [[whale]]s being killed, don't watch them being killed'').

(please add to list)

== Example ==

Here is an example of an actual attempt at [[liberal tricks]] that was posted on this very page:

{{QuoteBox|This article, and many others on a similar line, are a sad demonstration of incipient mental illness. Andrew Schlafly appears to be an educated man - after all, he edited a legal journal which was later edited by [[Barack Obama]] (I assume that Andy's tenure wasn't a result of [[affirmative action]] in favour of the narrow minded and the bigoted) - yet his denunciations of 'liberalism' get ever wilder and more paranoid as his definition of that beknighted state become ever more encompassing.}}

The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a [[conservative]] by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting '''liberal trick''' #15 above. To someone unfamiliar with '''liberal tricks''', this can be upsetting and intimidating. But once one realizes that this is a basic trick from the [[liberal]] playbook, its silliness and ineffectiveness becomes obvious. The [[liberal]]'s foolish tactic is then revealed for what it really is.

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

{{liberalism}}

Liberal bias in academia

2008-05-07T02:45:03Z

Proteus77:

'''Liberal bias in academia''' shows itself in several ways, including bias in grading for students who refuse to endorse liberal political beliefs or refusal to write recommendations for those with different beliefs.

Grading bias is when [[teacher]]s, primarily in [[public school]] and college, mark favorably [[liberal]] work and downgrade work that is [[politically incorrect]] or [[conservative]].

This is most apparent on controversial issues like [[abortion]], [[homosexuality]], [[evolution]], and [[gun control]], and [[environmentalism]]. In some cases a teacher will refuse to write a recommendation or a student will be denied full credit or graduation unless the student embraces a liberal belief.

The liberals' sense of self-entitlement and [[affirmative action]] has also created massive grade inflation in public schools.

== Example ==

A professor punished a student with a lower grade for having done something [[politically incorrect]] outside of class:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242688,00.html</ref>

:Dowd and another non-inducted Lacrosse player were enrolled in [Professor] Curtis’ "Politics and Literature" class. Grading was based on three papers plus class participation, each of which accounted for 25 percent of the total. At first, both players were passing the course, with Dowd receiving a C+ and a C- on his first two papers. (As a student overall, Dowd had a grade point average of approximately 3.4 on a 4.0 scale, with the C- being his lowest grade.)

But student Dowd was then accused of being at the politically incorrect party that resulted in the unjust, notorious indictment of three other players. Here is what happened next:

:[Professor] Curtis joined what has become infamously known as "the Group of 88"-- 88 faculty members who signed a full-page advertisement in Duke’s student newspaper. The ad was entitled "What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?" and stated, "Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism."

:The 88 linked their political outrage and condemnation to a specific criminal accusation; thus, the ad virtually convicted the Duke 3 of rape. It congratulated students on their anger "regardless of the results of the police investigation" and, so, sanctioned the posters then being tacked up on campus with photos of Lacrosse players over the word "rapist."

:University officials did not rein in the 88; faculty members have neither apologized for nor withdrawn their statements.

:Dowd and the other Lacrosser player became the only students in Curtis’ class to receive an overall "F." The grade meant Dowd could not graduate in May and would lose a job scheduled for July.

Dowd attempted to appeal the grade but was rebuffed with a terse reply that there are no appeals. Later, amid public pressure, Duke did change the grade to a "D", and Dowd had to sue in court to seek further justice.

This doesn't constitute liberal bias, the professors merely made a quick judgment before all evidence was collected. Though their accusation was wrong and the professors should have apologized for their position and recanted their judgment of the defendants, there is no evidence that constitutes "liberal bias in academia" if one uses the definitions of liberals gleaned from this site and tests the definition against what transpired in this article.

== References ==

<references/>

{{liberalism}}
[[Category: Liberals]]