Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Liberal labels

2008-10-01T15:32:02Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

[[Liberal]]s use words like "[[conservative]]" as epithets to disparage and discredit any views opposing [[Liberalism]]. In a typical news story, if opposing views are presented, the liberal view will be portrayed as mainstream, i.e., unmarked. A conservative view will be specifically marked, so viewers or readers know that it's not considered mainstream.

The basis for this is the liberal delusion that liberalism is mainstream, and that conservatism is "far right". Part of this is the motive to smear modern conservatism with connotations of [[Nazi]] [[Fascism]].

[[Category:Liberals]]
&

Liberal myths

2008-10-01T15:32:00Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

'''Liberal Myths''' are heavily promoted falsehoods motivated by a [[liberal]] belief system.<ref>http://www.twilightslastgleaming.com/myths.htm</ref> They include:

*The claim that the population has increased by a large amount, and human beings are beginning to overpopulate. (This myth is an attempt to justify abortions)
*The claim that people today are more knowledgeable than in prior centuries.
*The claim that the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the [[budget]] deficit.
*The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
*Anthropogenic [[Global Warming]]. <ref>[http://www.nowpublic.com/some-exasperating-liberal-myths Some Exasperating Liberal Myths] NowPublic.com, August 27, 2007</ref>
*The claim that a [[fetus]] is not a living human being.
*The claim that [[gun control]] reduces crime.
*The claim that [[abortion]] and [[breast cancer]] are unrelated.
*The claim that [[gambling]] financially benefits state school systems <REF>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/cbsnews_investigates/main3269456.shtml Is The Lottery Shortchanging Schools?] CBS News, September 17, 2007</ref>
*The claim to support the rights of women, never mention the oppressed women in Muslim countries. <ref>[http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/index.html About the Women's Rights Project] ACLU</ref>
*The claim that the [[media]] is not biased toward the liberal agenda.
*The claim that enabling [[oil]] drilling will not reduce long-term [[energy]] prices. <ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/07/nancy_pelosis_energy_policy.php?comments=show Nancy Pelosi's Energy Policy] Rightwingnews.com, July 8, 2008</ref>
*The claim that enabling oil drilling will not provide [[energy]] security.<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33767 Oil Money May Buy Drilling Vote, Liberal Says] CNSNews.com, August 7, 2008</ref>
*The claim that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the [[love]] from a mother and a father. <ref>[http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/families/a/adoption_2.htm Lesbian and Gay Adoption Rights] About.com</ref>
*The claim that an individuals [[sexual]] preference needs to be a protected civil right. <ref>[http://www.civilrights.org/research_center/civilrights101/sexualorientation.html GAYS AND LESBIANS] Civilrights.com</ref>
*That there is a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]] <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359741,00.html THE VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY] Fox News, May 29, 2008</ref>
*The claim that opposing the [[homosexual agenda]] is [[bigotry]]. <ref>[http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/detail.aspx?id=102 Boycott McDonald's!] American Family Association</ref>
*The claim that the US acted unilaterally in Iraq (The USA and Britain led a 30-nation coalition in Iraq)<ref>[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm558.cfm The Myth of U.S. Isolation] The Heritage Foundation, September 7, 2004 </ref>
*The claim that [[President Bush]] stole the 2000 elections. <ref>[http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239 Floridagate] Democrats.com</ref>
*The claim that [[President Bush]] lied about WMD in [[Iraq]] to grab [[oil]].
*The claim that [[Saddam Hussein]] was not seeking to buy yellowcake Uranium. <ref>[http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/14/tenet-niger/ Tenet Agrees To Cooperate With Congressional Investigation Into Niger Fraud] ThinkProgress, May 14, 2007</ref>
*The claim that the [[9/11]] terrorists attacks were an inside job by the [[USA]].
*The claim that Foreign Intelligence & Surveillance Act (FISA) is for spying on Americans. <ref>[http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080709.html Senate Passes Unconstitutional Spying Bill] ACLU, July 9, 2008</ref>
*The claim that [[bigger government]] will benefit its' citizens. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/candidates_public_service/2008/09/11/130009.html McCain, Obama Discuss Views on Public Service] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref>
*The claim that [[military]] recruits are poor and uneducated. <ref>[http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda05-08.cfm Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits] Heritage Foundation, November 7, 2005</ref> <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200612/ai_n17197505 Rangel Is Wrong About Recruits] Human Events, December 4,2006</ref> <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/31/kerry.mccain/ Bush on Kerry remark: U.S. troops are 'plenty smart'] CNN, November 1, 2006</ref>
*The claim that [[government]] run [[healthcare]] is better than a capitalist healthcare system. <ref>[http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr009=j7lglh8nq9.app5b&page=NewsArticle&id=9238&news_iv_ctrl=1283 Free, universal health care must be a right!] VotePSL.org, may 30, 2008</ref>
*They claim that going on the offense against [[terrorists]] creates more terrorists. <ref>[http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/madeleine-albright-we-created-more.html Madeleine Albright: "We Created More Terrorists... Our Soldiers Are the Problem"] Gateway Pundit, March 27, 2008</ref>
*They claim that terrorism should be handled by [[law]] enforcement. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902041.html Strategy Against Al-Qaeda Faulted] Washington Post, July 30, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,406901,00.html Bush: War on Terror is Not Law Enforcement Matter] AP, August 20, 2008</ref>
*They claim that the USA should negotiate with rogue [[nations]] and terror groups.
*They claim that [[socialism]] is a better than [[capitalism]].
*They claim that there is a [[gene]] which causes people to be gay, despite the fact that the scientific community rejects this view
*They claim that [[humans]] and [[apes]] have a common ancestor
*They claim that the [[death penalty]] does not deter [[crime]], despite the overwhelming evidence showing that the death penalty does deter crime
*They claim that [[atheists]] are just as moral as [[Christians]] who regularly go to a church, or in some of them claim atheists are morally superior.
*They claim that all [[religions]] teach the same thing.
*They claim that [[intelligent design]] is not a science and has no evidence.
*They claim that no [[climatologist]] or [[physicist]] rejects global warming, despite the fact that the founder of The Weather Channel rejects global warming, as do thousands of other scientists.
*They claim [[affirmative action]] works.
*They claim the [[Old Testament]] is immoral.
*They claim that the [[Jews]] aren't the Jews of the Bible.
*They claim that [[feminism]] has no bias.
*They claim [[homosexuals]] do not try to convert [[heterosexuals]].
*They claim that [[gay marriage]] will not result in [[polygamy]] also being written into law.
*They claim that the [[Bible]] is fictional.
*They claim that [[Liberal Christianity]] is compatible with the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]].
*The claim that proper tire inflation can replace the need for additional oil drilling.
*That we should eat less red meat in order to combat [[climate change]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418801,00.html</ref>
==Patriotism==

----

The liberal belief that an individual can claim to support our military, just not the mission and still be considered a 'Patriot'. In fact, the exact opposite is the truth. A liberals patriotism, party-specific position, cannot support the troops if they are an a impediment to their political left-wing strategy. The main reason for this has to due with passionate, partisan hatred for our current commander n chief, the [[President of the United States of America]]. Liberals claim to support the military, claim not to support the mission and refuse to support the Commander. The extremist left discounts the counter effect of troop morale. Understanding the true liberal mindset when it comes to supporting our U.S. troops, observe the often tried protest march. Though frustration boils over, actions lead from protest to outright sabotage or anarchism. <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/01/anti-war-protest-at-gop-convention-turns-violent/ Anti-War Protest at GOP Convention Turns Violent] Fox News, September 1, 2008</ref> Liberal credibility fails and lack of concern for the support of America shows. The left-wing cares so much for our military they condone and actually prop up politicians that abuse troops with reckless accusations <ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Federal_judge_order_Murtha_to_testify_in_Haditha_defamation_case.html Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case] Politico, September 28, 2007</ref>, negative media coverage and ego trips <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrystuckiniraq.htm Political Humor] About.com</ref>. Liberal protesters look the other way as war memorials are vandalized. Liberals protest our severely injured soldiers at the Walter Reed Medical Center.<ref>[http://www.crosswalk.com/1347570/ Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital] Crosswalk.com</ref> Liberal protesters harass, damage or block military recruitment centers from operating business as-usual. <ref>[http://mfvov.com/blog/?p=505 Recruiting Center Attacks Coast to Coast] Military Families Voice of Victory, March 19, 2008</ref> This leftwing position, the myth is successful in feeding media driven discontent and mediocrity shame. If the news is bad, a liberal is spoon fed. If the news is good, the spoon fed liberal is oblivious. e.g. "a complete suspension of disbelief".

Patriotism, to your brother, who volunteers and risks the ultimate sacrifice out of love, will never be diminished. True patriots will always be in our gratitude and held in the highest light.

==America Perceived==

----

The myth liberals give says we need to restore America's image in the world. Again, this mostly has to do with liberals' negative view of [[President Bush]]. Liberals want the two linked even though the myth is false. They blame Bush and Iraq for the bad USA image but the truth is that the credibility of the American left is a worse image than America's image abroad. The main need for liberals to propagate this myth is the fact that [[socialist]] governments of Europe oppose the policy of [[Iraq]]. This further fuels liberals' political agenda to remove [[Republicans]] from power. Liberals love Europeans and cite their false socialist utopia at every chance. European opposition automatically reinforces their belief that America's image is damaged. As of 2008, most of the [[European]] leaders that opposed Iraq are no longer in positions of power. The result, European [[conservatives]] were elected who publicly aligned themselves with America.

Those [[liberals]] that use the myth and regularly bash the USA are often called the "Blame America First" crowd. Though they never seem to mention that America gives more in donations, in total dollars, than any other country on Earth. <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm Americans give record $295B to charity] USA Today, 6/25/2007</ref> A sure way to change America's image in the world is to show the world we respect life. The repeal of Roe Vs. Wade would be a start.

Reasons why [[America]] was hated prior to 2003 include wealth, women's rights, support for our democratic ally [[Israel]], democratic government, capitalist economy and exporting immorality.

==Bad Successful Companies==

----

In the attempt to point fingers and lay blame, the liberals produce the myth that profits made by successful companies are bad for America. Only a select group of companies are targeted for public shame. This is a false myth because successful corporations actually create jobs and [[tax]] revenue. Retirement funds and municipal bonds rely heavily on the profits from these companies. Also, the reason these companies flourish is because the capitalist system rewards their hard work. The liberals will try to create sympathy, that they care for the average American, they are the ones going after wrongdoers to make it right. [[Liberals]] have demonized such companies as RJ Reynolds, Walmart, Halliburton and Blackwater. Their latest target is Exxon Mobil for their enormous profits and futures market oil speculators. Most of their accusations are absurd. Liberals in [[Congress]] don't blink an eye when it comes time to spend all that tax revenue generated. Liberals in Congress have been called on their [[hypocrisy]] for owning stocks in those companies. Which in turn, they divest their portfolios like nothing was ever wrong. For years, for decades, these companies have lobbied members of Congress, they have worked together for their common goals. In return, hefty [[campaign]] donations are their reward. Then for opportune reasons, liberals will publicly ridicule and verbally attack these bad, greedy capitalists. Corporate heads are brought before congress for a sideshow grilling to explain their actions. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/01/MNU7VU217.DTL Congress asks Big Oil to justify big profits] The SF Chronicle, April 2, 2008</ref> The Windfall Tax is just another example of the sham created by this liberal myth. Those companies make enough money, they should now be forced to give some back. They are threatened with nationalization <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65111 Congresswoman threatens to nationalize oil industry] Worldnetdaily.com, May 23, 2008</ref>
and further government regulation, a socialist scheme.

==References==
<references/>
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:liberals]]
&

Liberal quotient

2008-10-01T15:31:54Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

'''Liberal quotient''' is a new term coined by Conservapedia to quantify how [[liberal]] a group is. It is used for assessing political bias and for evaluating statements or positions by such a group.

The liberal quotient is defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group, and, by definition, infinity if there are no conservatives.

According to a Harris Poll from 2005 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548], 40% of all Americans identify as moderates, 35% as conservatives, and 18% as liberals. This gives a liberal quotient of about 1:2. These numbers have been fairly constant during the last decades.

A [[Wikipedia]] user can choose from 32 different categories to self-identify their political ideology.{{fact}} There are 240 users who chose to self-identify as liberal, and 75 who self-identified as conservative. This means that the group of editors on Wikipedia that chose to self-identify has a liberal quotient of about 3:1.

Groups having a high liberal quotient would include university faculties, the National Education Association, the leadership of the [[Democratic Party]], the management of the ''Village Voice'' and ''New York Times'', and the leaders of the [[ACLU]]. Groups having a low liberal quotient would include a trade association of small business owners, an association of Christian athletes, and worshipers at church on an ordinary Sunday, with the exception of black protestant congregations [http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=174].

== Comparison to Other Metrics ==

While some liberals oppose any measurement of their influence, others have proposed different metrics. One alternative proposal of a liberal quotient is the percentage of liberals in a population or group.

This metric fails to distinguish between conservatives and moderates. For example, this metric yields the same result if there were 50 liberals and 50 moderates as if there were 50 liberals and 50 conservatives, even though the two groups have very different political biases.

The formulation LQ = L/(L+C) has also been proposed - the Liberal quotient is the ratio of self identified liberals to the sum of self identified liberals and conservatives. This yields a range from 0 to 1, and is not affected by moderates or the unidentified. But by constraining the quotient to a scale of 0 to 1, it understates a large increase in liberal control. A group having 9 liberals and just one conservative would have a liberal quotient of 0.9, while a group having 99 liberals and only one conservative would have a liberal quotient of only 0.99. Increasing the liberal control eleven-fold would result in only a 10% increase in this quotient. A rebuttal to this criticism is that this is just how percentages work.

Proponent of this measure point out that both measure are mathematical equivalent. Given a liberal quotient defined as LQ=L/C the alternative measure can be obtained by the transformation LQ/(1+LQ). Since one measure can be obtained from the other by a simple transformation, preferring one over the other is simply a matter of taste.

== Criticism ==

Critics of the liberal quotient point out that it discounts groups identifying neither as liberal nor conservative, such as the 40% of moderates in the American public. A group with 97 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative has the same liberal quotient as a group with 1 moderate, 66 Liberals and 33 conservatives, although some might claim the latter group is more liberal. Furthermore, while "conservative" may be considered a general description for someone with right-wing ideological beliefs, "liberal" does not carry the same connotations for people of the left wing; many socialists would not consider themselves to be liberals.

It has also been pointed out that this metric does not differentiate between groups with differing levels of liberal beliefs; an extreme left-wing group may have the same liberal quotient as a mildly liberal group.

The metric can fail to distinguish between conservatives and moderates. The liberal quotient yields the same result if there were 50 conservatives and 50 moderates as if there were 100 conservatives, even though the two groups have very different political biases.

A rebuttal is to these criticisms is that it is unclear what moderates add or subtract to a group. For example, it is argued that the counterweight by provided 33 conservatives to the 66 liberals in the presence of 1 moderate, than that is just as effective as the counterweight provided by 1 conservative to 2 liberals in the presence of 97 moderates. The influence of moderates are in this argumentation purposefully ignored, for the sake of simplicity.

In this context it has also been pointed out that the term ''liberal quotient'' can be misleading, and will often be understood to mean liberal fraction. The liberal quotient of 1:2 of the American public, for example, might be mistaken to mean that 66% of all Americans are conservative, although it is only about 35% according to the Harris poll.

A more fundamental criticism is directed to the use of the liberal quotient when applied to media outlets or encyclopedias. Rather than estimating the political orientation of editors, critics propose to consider the political orientation of the actual content. Recent scientific studies on media bias look at the media content, and not at the orientation of the editors, and use in addition other measures than the quotient of articles with a liberal bias versus articles with a conservative bias [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=947640#PaperDownload][http://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html]. Note, that both studies nevertheless conclude that most media outlets have a liberal bias.

Another problem with applying this metric to media outlets and encyclopedia is that, in contrast to groups, unbiased articles, the analog to moderates, do not swing their orientation in the presence of biased articles. An encyclopedia with 99.7% unbiased articles, 0.2% liberally biased articles, and 0.1% conservatively biased articles, has the same liberal bias as a product with 66.6% liberally biased articles, 33.3% conservative articles , 0.1% unbiased articles. However, the first would be considered a reliable source of information, while the second would be highly unreliable. And this despite having the same liberal quotient. Even if the influence of moderates in a group of people might be unclear, the influence of unbiased articles on on the reliability of an encyclopedia is obvious.

Other criticism of the liberal quotient is directed at the way it is used in comparison of the bias of Wikipedia with statistically sound results from a Harris Poll. The identified problems are:
* The comparison relies on raw data from a self-selected sample [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_political_ideology].
* It compares 2 answers of a poll with 3 possible answers, to 2 of 32 user categories.
* It compares the outcome of a poll in which respondent can only choose one option, with one a self-identification project, in which users can choose as many options as they like.

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]
&

Classical liberal

2008-10-01T15:31:54Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

A '''classical liberal''' is someone who is [[liberal]] in the original sense of the word: namely, advocating personal freedom.

A common synonym for 'classical liberal' which is more commonly used in the US is [[libertarian]].

The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called classical liberalism, or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:

*[[Freedom of speech]]
*[[Freedom of religion]]
*The right to form political parties and vote
*Freedom to invest in and use private property
*Freedom to work as one chooses
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts
*Free trade and freedom of migration
*Sexual freedom
*[[Equal rights]] independent of race or sex

This interpretation of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>.

Classical liberalism is the primary [[ideology]] behind politics in the United States. Both modern American [[liberalism]] and [[conservatism]] are branches of classical liberalism, as they both seek to promote individual freedom, though in different ways. Other ideologies which are not popular in the US include [[socialism]], [[communism]], and [[fascism]].

A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British news magazine [[The Economist]].

==References==
<references />
[[category:politics]]
&

Godless liberal

2008-10-01T15:31:53Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

"'''Godless liberal'''" refers to [[liberal]]s who are [[atheists]], or who believe in purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life.

== References ==
{{Reflist|2}}

==See also==
{{Nb Atheism}}

[[Category:Liberals]]
&

Liberal Party

2008-10-01T15:31:52Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

"'''Liberal Party'''" is the name of some [[political parties]] in a number of countries:

The '''[[Liberal Party of Australia]]''' is a pro-business conservative party, founded in [[1944]]. There was also an earlier [[Liberal Party (Australia)|Liberal Party]] during the second decade of the [[20th century]].

The '''[[Liberal Party of Canada]]''' is a centre left, pro-business party.
There are also parties affliated with the Canadian federal liberal party in addition to autonomous parties active in the politics of the provinces of Canada.

There is a '''[[Liberal Party]]''' which is a pro-business party in [[Hong Kong]]

In the [[United Kingdom]], the [[Liberal Party]] evolved from the Whig Party. The majority of members went on to merge with the [[Social Democratic Party (SDP)]] to form the [[Liberal Democrats]] in 1988. A minority of members maintained the Liberal Party name and formed a new party because they felt that the Liberal Democrats had lost the ideals of the original party.

[[Category:Political Parties]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
&

Universal Health Care

2008-10-01T15:31:50Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

'''Universal health care''' ('''UHC''') can refer to things in two distinct categories: (1) methods of paying for health care, such as [[health insurance]]; and (2) systems of providing patients with services, prescriptions, and the like. Some politicians and activists blur the distinction.

There are several different ways of paying for health care, including private insurance, government-supplied insurance, [[single payer]] [[health insurance]] or [[health savings accounts]].

The [[United States]] has a mixture of public and private insurance programs. [http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html] Additionally, some hospitals provide free care to those who cannot pay (usually they bill you, and if you don't pay they write off the debt).

[[Massachusetts]] enacted something close to '''universal health care''', and it has resulted in the predictable problem of long waiting lines for care. In the case of one physician, she does not have an opening for a routine physical for more than a year into the future.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html?_r=1&ex=1208232000&en=edd47716a3c98fbf&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin</ref> Residents of [[Massachusetts]] are required to purchase insurance or else be penalized for not having it, and after purchasing the insurance they are demanding care that is straining the system of physicians.

==Ways to Pay for Universal Health Care==

There are many different types of care which fall under the term universal health care <ref>American Medical Student Association, ''Theoretical Models for Delivering Health Care'' [http://www.amsa.org/uhc/theories.cfm]</ref>. Some of these systems are highlighted here:

*'''Single-payer''' health care is a system in which one entity pays for the health care of the entire population (see [[single-payer system]]). This entity is traditionally the federal or national government, and the system is paid for through taxes. [[Canada]], [[Cuba]] and [[North Korea]] are the only three countries using this system.
*'''Multi-payer''' health care is similar to the single-payer system, except that individuals may also choose to purchase private insurance. The [[United Kingdom]] is an example of this, with a [[National Health Service]] system available to all residents, which is paid for through a [[National Insurance]] scheme plus general taxation. People are, however, free to purchase private insurance and be treated privately if they so wish. [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Japan]], [[Austria]], [[Belgium]] and the [[Netherlands]] also use the multi-payer system.<ref name="contracosta">Hill, Stephen, ''Contra Costa Times'', [http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/news/prclips/contra-costa-times_150513.pdf "Single payer not only way for universal health care]</ref>
*'''Tax Credits''' can be used to provide uninsured individuals with a discount in their taxes to use towards paying for health care.
*'''Managed competition''' is a system which allows employers to join health care purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives negotiate with private insurance providers to provide employees with a number of health options. The premiums are paid for in large part by the employer, and all purchasers pay the same price, regardless of their current health situation.

==Ways to Administer Universal Health Care==
There are essentially only two ways to administer health care: privately or through the state. Health care in most countries is administered largely if not solely by private organizations, but some proponents of universal health care advocate [[socialized medicine]], in which health care is primarily or soley administered and paid for by the state. Sometimes the terms ''socialized medicine'' and ''universal health care'' are used interchangeably, but this is not technically correct, as UHC can include methods other than socialized medicine.<ref>[[American Medical Student Association]][http://www.amsa.org/pdf/model.pdf ''Theoretical Models for Delivering Universal Health Care: An analysis of important concepts].</ref><ref>[http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=25521 MedicineNet.com MedTerms Dictionary]</ref>

==Current Practice and Effectiveness==
An aspect of universal health care, emergency treatments, are accessible to all in the United States. [[David Hogberg]] wrote:
:"... everyone in the U.S. can get care regardless of income. In 1986 the [[U.S. Congress]] passed the [[Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act]]. This requires [[emergency room]]s to treat any person who shows up seeking medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay." [http://www.freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.php]

Free Market Health Care is paradoxical. Healthy people are the highest earners. Healthy people can afford to pay for medical treatment but do not need it. Less healthy people need more treatment but can pay less. The most unfortunate are those born with chronic illnesses or disabilities. Such patients may in the worst cases never in their lives earn the money they need to pay for medical treatment. Universal Health Care is seen as compassionate. It looks after those who through no fault of their own cannot look after themselves.

Most developed countries have instituted various types of universal health care, though most [[conservatives]] say with inadequate results (lengthy waiting times, for example). Cuba is another country with woefully inadequate socialized health care. In Canada, it is illegal for a doctor to "bill" a patient, but one doctor found many people suffering while waiting months or years for treatment. He sued the government, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, and won (see Dr. [[Jacques Chaoulli]]).

[[France]], [[Germany]], [[Japan]], [[Austria]], [[Belgium]] and [[The Netherlands]] also use the multi-payer system in a style called ''shared responsibility''. Under this scheme workers and employers are required to pay into private, non-profit, government-regulated [[insurance fund]]s. The government covers the cost of the low- and no-income citizens. These insurance funds negotiate strict cost controls with the government and health care providers to keep out-of-pocket costs from skyrocketing. Private insurance can be purchased on top of the insurance fund, to pay for premium services.<ref name="contracosta" />

The [[World Health Organization]] rates France highest of all countries), though it is having trouble keeping costs in line. Similar results are found in other shared responsibility systems.<ref>[[Christian Science Monitor]], [http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0520/p06s01-woeu.html ''French health system gets surgery''].</ref>

==Proponents of Universal Health Care==
*The '''American Medical Student Association''' [http://www.amsa.org/uhc/] is a proponent of single-payer health insurance.
*The '''Universal Health Care Action Network (UHCAN)''' [http://www.uhcan.org/] is an organization which promotes universal health care in general.
*The Center for Health Care Policy Research and Analysis is a proponent of a multi-payer health care system
*The World Health Organization has shown the U.S. is not getting an appropriate return for the money it spends on health care, and advocates a universal health care system.
*The Commonwealth fund is a proponent for universal health care in the U.S.
*The Economist's View supports a single-payment system in the U.S.'''(http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/health_care_the.html)
*U.S. physicians for universal health care'''(http://www.pnhp.org/)

==Opponents of Universal Health Care==
[[Conservatives]] and [[libertarians]] believe that, in general, the more government control over health care, the worse it gets. For example, they argue that the U.S. produces the most new drugs and techniques because the largely unhindered [[free market]] system provides incentives for innovation and efficiency. Some conservatives and most libertarians argue that there could be even fewer restrictions and regulations, thereby improving health care even further.

*The '''[[The Cato Institute|Cato Institute]]''' [http://www.cato.org/healthcare/] is in favor of free market solutions to health care, and advocates health savings accounts in combination with high-deductible private insurance plans.

==See Also==
*[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care] - by Dr. [[David Gratzer]] of the [[Manhattan Institute]]
*[http://www.freemarketcure.com/ Free Market Cure], site criticizing universal health care.
*[[Health care]]
*[[Socialized medicine]]
*[[Free health care]]
*[[Single-payer health care]]
*[[Multi-payer health care]]
*[[Health savings accounts]]

{{liberalism}}

==References==
<references />

[[category:medicine]]
&

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-10-01T15:31:47Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

[[Liberal]] ideology, and [[liberal]] arguments, have their greatest appeal with intellectual wannabees: people who are long in academic degrees but short in intellectual achievements of their own. Perhaps they genuinely fall for the superficial, fallacious [[liberal logic]], or perhaps they just enjoy the attention and extra income in being pseudo-intellectuals and media-promoted experts.

Examples of not-quite-intellectuals who promote [[liberal]] arguments include:

*[[John Kerry]]
:*privileged youth, weak student at [[Yale]], no original work
*[[Al Gore]]
:*privileged youth, poor graduate student, claimed to help with the creation of the [[internet]]<ref>Al Gore bragged, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/]</ref>
*[[Bill Clinton]]
:*may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at [[Georgetown University]], never released his grades, failed to earn a degree at [[Oxford]], no original work or ideas
*[[Richard Dawkins]]
:*lasted only 2 years teaching at [[University of California, Berkeley]], a mere lecturer at [[Oxford]] until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him
*[[Stephen Jay Gould]]
:*[[Antioch College]] graduate (geology major), his work is riddled with contradictions
*[[Laurence Tribe]]
:*dropped out of a graduate math program, passed over initially for Law Review, passed over for [[Solicitor General]] in 1993,<ref>Tribe admitted he was being considered, but he was not nominated. "Under Clinton, Crimson tide washes over Washington," The Boston Globe (Mar. 4, 1993).</ref> [[plagiarism]] later found in his work<ref>"Joseph Bottum, books and arts editor of the Weekly Standard, presents overwhelming evidence to support his claim that Tribe's 1985 book, God Save This Honorable Court, was largely copied from a 1974 book called Justices and Presidents by the University of Virginia's Henry J. Abraham. Bottum's case rests on the relentless citation of example after example where it is clear that Tribe has copied both the substance and, in many cases, the exact wording of Abraham's text. Most damning is Tribe's repetition of errors, like slight misquotations of original sources, in Abraham's book."[http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007975.php]</ref>
*[[Robert McNamara]]
:*described as a "whiz kid," he wrote or did nothing of significance, mishandled [[Vietnam War]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
:*fluent in relatively few languages for a diplomat, had no insights or noteworthy work, mishandled [[Vietnam War]] and [[Soviet Union]]
*[[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]
:*repeatedly passed over for the [[Nobel Prize]] due to a lack of achievement, allowed multiple leaks from [[Los Alamos]]
*[[Jon Stewart]]
*[[Noam Chomsky]]
:*famous for making a few guesses about [[linguistics]] some of which turned out to be partially correct. He has not done any work in linguistics in 30 years and just spends his time promoting left-wing politics outside his supposed area of expertise.
*[[John Maynard Keynes]]
:*dropped out of [[math]] to pursue the less rigorous [[economics]], but was unable to earn a doctorate even in that
*[[Michel Foucault]]
*[[Rachel Carson]]
:* Started the [[environmentalist]] movement with her book [[Silent Spring]] which was found to be full of errors, exaggerations and disregard for actual [[science]].
*[[Bertrand Russell]]
:*claimed to be proving the completeness and consistency of math, a goal [[Godel]] proved was impossible. Advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament.
*[[Ward Churchill]]
:*Offended millions of Americans by comparing those that died in 9/11 to Adolf Eichmann, notorious organizer of the [[Holocaust]]. Had the gall to sue the University that terminated him.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul25/0,4670,EmbattledProfessor,00.html</ref>
*[[Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.]]
:*privileged youth, rise to the top based upon family name and inherited connections. Currently publisher of the ''[[New York Times]]''.
*[[Charles Darwin]]
:*poor student
*[[Carl Sagan]]
:*insisted that there must be life in outer space
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
:*flunked the [[D.C.]] bar exam; worked on the House Judiciary impeachment staff investigating [[Richard Nixon]]. Hillary's work was so poorly conceived and drafted that a member of the Committee, [[William Dixon]] said Hillary "paid no attention to the way the [[Constitution]] works in this country, the way politics works, the way Congress works, the way legal safeguards are set up."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=foWUM2R1K0wC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=hillary+nixon+olson&source=web&ots=06xJC-jwnM&sig=P6LflOsDROMR16cn_WGvXg4iZHU#PPA122,M1 Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton], By Barbara Olson, Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2001, pp. 122-123.</ref>
*[[Al Franken]]
:*Puerile jokester turned politician wannabe
*[[Richard Feynman]]
:*Mostly worked with theoretical instead of practical issues. His constant patronization of nude bars is an excellent example of [[professor values]]
*[[Ernest Hemingway]]
:*Supported [[Socialists]] in the Spanish Civil War. Overrated writer. Went insane and killed himself.
*[[Linus Pauling]]
:*Proponent of Vitamin C cure-all [[junk science]]
*[[Oscar Wilde]]
:*Mostly wrote silly comedies, little of substance. Sexual deviant.

Please add other examples.

== Praised Heaped by Pseudo-Intellectual [[Liberals]] on Each Other ==

It is remarkable how pseudo-intellectual [[liberal]]s praise each other as geniuses. Examples include:

*[[Bertrand Russell]] declaring that the most intelligent man he ever knew was [[John Maynard Keynes]]<ref>http://www.hwkhelp.com/node/43</ref>

*[[Laurence Tribe]], who saw the best law students for several decades, insisted that fellow [[liberal]] [[Barack Obama]] was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant."<ref>http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Please add other examples.

== Motivation ==

There are two primary motivations for the [[liberal]] advocacy by pseudo-intellectuals:

* it is easier for them to obtain acclaim from the liberal press than from real intellectuals

* they genuinely fail to understand certain abstractions, such as:

:* how cutting taxes often increases government revenue ([[Laffer Curve]])
::* it should be noted that many economist also fail to understand this <ref>Blanchard, O. ''Macroeconomics, 4th edition''. 2003, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall (p. 430-431, 500)</ref><ref>Begg, D. Fischer, S. & Dornbusch, R. ''Economics, 8th Edition''. 2005, Berkshire, United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill (p. 289-290)</ref>
:* how guns save more lives through deterrence and prevention than they harm
:* how childbirth has a positive effect on health, and thus [[abortion]] harms health
:* how cease-fires always help a determined opponent in war
:* how arms limitations treaties always helps a dishonest adversary

* they expect superficial, flawed logic to persuade others, such as:

:* claiming that inequality in outcome implies discrimination
:* demanding equal treatment for genders in all situations
:* claiming that the [[gay agenda]] is like the civil rights struggle by African Americans
:* insisting that government can reduce poverty with more programs

Please add to these lists.

== Superiority Complex ==
The liberal believes they are superior to others. Not in a physical sense but mentally, they have their high ground and nobody dare challenge. If you challenge Liberal Intellectualism thinking and beliefs, you risk being ridiculed. A good example is the classic Democrats versus Democratics statement. Liberal Intellectualism will say that it is not proper to use the sentence with the word Democrats, it must be proper, so it must be Democratics. However, 'Democrats' will suffice rather well and the reader understands regardless. There are many instances where <i>Democratic</i> politicians use the word Democrats. Howard Dean says "Democrats have a lot of work to do among seniors." The nation's liberal newspapers use the word Democrats. Google's spellcheck prefers Democrats. The website for congress is addressed 'democrats.senate.gov' Excuses for insisting are endless and a part of Liberal Intellectualism thinking.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Oxymorons]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
&

Warren Court

2008-10-01T15:31:45Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

The '''Warren Court''' was the activist [[U.S. Supreme Court]] led by Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] from 1953 to 1969. The Justices who voted consistently with Warren were [[William Brennan]], [[Hugo Black]], [[William O. Douglas]] and [[Abe Fortas]], who formed a powerful five-person majority capable of deciding any case regardless of what how other Justices held.

The Warren Court found many new rights not expressly in the [[U.S. Constitution]]. Among other important Warren Court decisions were the following:

:[[Miranda v. Arizona]] (established strict standards for how police could conduct custodial interrogations)

:[[Engel v. Vitale]] (limited mandatory school prayer in public schools)

:[[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (established a right to privacy for married couples)

:[[Brown v. Board of Education]] (overturned the ''[[separate but equal]]'' decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in [[Plessy v. Ferguson]])

:[[Berman v. Parker]] (allowed the taking by government of private property for private use)

:[[Cooper v. Aaron]] (established that Supreme Court precedents are binding on the states)

:[[Gideon v. Wainwright]] (established an indigent defendant's right to appointed counsel in felony cases)

Time magazine said this about the Warren Court in 1966:<ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,840703,00.html</ref>

:In the not-so-distant past, the Supreme Court hewed to precedent and generally rebuffed all but the most monumental constitutional questions. But ever since Earl Warren became Chief Justice in 1953, a new "activist" court has thrown open its judicial windows to practically every ill and issue of U.S. life. In the face of what it regards as legislative inaction, the "Warren court" has desegregated schools, revolutionized criminal justice, rewritten the U.S. political system by plunging into the thicket of legislative reapportionment. To expand the long reach of the Constitution, it has imposed almost all of the Bill of Rights on the states as well as the Federal Government for the first time in U.S. history.

:Time and again, critics have blasted the Warren court for being more political than judicial; yet time and again, its controversial decisions have survived all efforts to override them by constitutional amendment. Not surprisingly, the nation's lawyers now figure that almost every case raises constitutional issues that may attract the court. They appeal more and more cases, and as a result, more and more decisions raise more and more issues. Over the years, the court's workload has risen steadily. In 1940 the court handled only 977 cases, in 1950 only 1,181. Last term it considered a total of 3,267 cases.

==References==
<references/>

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

National Organization of Women

2008-10-01T15:31:44Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

#REDIRECT [[National Organization for Women]]
&

Conservative Links

2008-10-01T15:31:43Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

#REDIRECT [[Conservative links]]
&

Democratic National Committee

2008-10-01T15:31:43Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

#REDIRECT [[Democratic Party]]
&

Liberal friendship

2008-10-01T15:31:43Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

#REDIRECT [[Liberals and friendship]]
&

Drinking Liberally

2008-10-01T15:31:42Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

'''Drinking Liberally''' is a [[socialist]] and [[liberal]] "drinking club". Today there are many "chapters" of the club, which meet on a regular basis to discuss political strategy in an unregulated environment, including some affiliated with college campus organizations such as Young Democrats chapters. [[Jon Corzine]] and [[Ned Lamont]] were both known to regularly visit their local "chapters" of the organization.

It was started by activists in the neighborhood of Hell's Kitchen in New York City.

==External links==
*[http://drinkingliberally.org/ Home Page]
[[Category:Political Organizations]]
&

Disarmament treaties

2008-10-01T15:31:42Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

Disarmament treaties are largely a product of the [[Cold War]] arms build up. Recognizing that the [[nuclear weapon|nuclear]] stockpiles held by the [[Soviet Union]] and the [[United States]] were far greater than what it would take to obliterate life on the planet, let alone fight a war, attempts were made to reduce these armaments.

This disarmament would have to occur [[bilateral]]ly and [[verifiable|verifiably]] for it be effective (at reducing the threat of a [[nuclear holocaust]]). Both of these concerns lead to grave difficulties with such treaties.

There have never been any similar treaties involving conventional weapons, although one might consider a barroom armed standoff to be an instance where one would be a good idea - "you put down your gun while I put mine down - slowly, now - and we'll let cooler heads prevail". Such a situation might reduce injuries to bystanders (we can safely assume the people who pulled the guns don't mind getting shot).

==See Also==
[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the consequences of violation over Kamchatka of U.S.-Soviet Union Salt II agreements

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
&

Liberal Myths

2008-10-01T15:31:41Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

#REDIRECT [[Liberal myths]]
&

Liberal logic

2008-10-01T15:31:41Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

'''Liberal logic''' is an argument by [[liberal]]s that is deceptively attractive to some, but is actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

# insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it
# personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on [[logic]]
# frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in demanding censorship of [[intelligent design]] while simultaneously citing the resulting silence as proof against it<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]].</ref>
# claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
# criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home. Liberals also often insist that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.</ref>
# no matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it
# belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
# often a [[liberal]] responds to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
# never admit shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often tell others they should be ashamed of themselves
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about [[John McCain]]
# if [highly implausible assumption like "[[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis"], then would you support it (without any consideration of alternatives)?
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
# [[free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
# insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while censorship for anything is [[Christian]]
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
# carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, but choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk
# requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, when actually poverty is increased by the dependency
# insisting that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
# insisting that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease
# insisting that premarital sex is fine
# insisting that increasing taxes must increase government revenue, when often people just work less and revenues then decline
# denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime
# Even though the [[Supreme Court]] overrules precedents every year by 5-4 votes, [[Roe v. Wade]] cannot be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
# The pronoun "he" has been used to include men and women collectively for centuries, but [[liberals]] find that illogical today. This does not mean to replace the word 'she' on the article for Hillary Clinton with 'he'.
# Getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into [[Iraq]] was wrong but stepping into [[Sudan]] is not.
# The [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.
# It is a right to dissent against [[American]] policy but never take a stand if that [[logic]] moves beyond dissent and becomes treason.
# The wondrous, pristine national park of [[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its' beauty. Though, it is but a remote barren tundra that nobody visits. <ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/MaryFallin/2008/07/24/anwrs_place_in_our_energy_picture ANWR's Place In Our Energy Picture] Townhall.com, July 24, 2008</ref>
# It's not fair to the world that [[America]] keeps the thermostat at 72 degrees at all times. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459 Freedom and the View From Obamaland] American Spectator, July 1, 2008</ref>
# It is ok to demean an African-American if they are a [[conservative]], if they are a [[liberal]] then you are a [[racist]].

(add to list)

==See also==

*[[Liberal bias]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal style]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]
*[[Liberal friendship]]
*[[Liberal]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:oxymoron]]
&

Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession

2008-10-01T15:31:41Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

'''Liberal celebrity obsession''' is the phenomenon of obessions over the lives of celebrities which is demonstrated mainly by individuals with [[liberal]] political leanings.

== Media ==
Liberal celebrity obsession can be observed on most [[mainstream media]] outlets. Often the media will prioritize trivial [[celebrity]] activities over events with legitimate importance.

'''Some examples include''':
*Excessive coverage of [[Paris Hilton]]'s jail sentence.
*Excessive coverage of [[Anna Nicole Smith]] and the liberal media's attempt at making her the next [[Marilyn Monroe]].
*Excessive coverage of [[Britney Spears]]' personal life.

Liberals will often listen to the testimony of a celebrity such as [[Sheryl Crow]]<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/21/AR2007042101385_pf.html Saving the Earth: The Biodiesel Bus Blog]</ref> or [[Leonardo DiCaprio]]<ref>[http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/dicaprio.htm Leonardo DiCaprio to Produce Documentary on Global Warming]</ref> when discussing matters such as [[Global Warming]].

== Entertainment ==
Publications such as [[tabloid]]s and [[Entertainment Tonight]] garner most of their audience from the liberal population. With this support, these enterprises are allowed to exist because they cater to the [[liberal]] appetite.

== Harmful Effects ==
Liberal celebrity obsession can lead to dangerous behavior such as stalking. Some notable stalkers include [[John Hinckley]], [[Dawnette Knight]] and [[Ambrose Kappos]].

Obsessed individuals may also place more importance in the activities of celebrities over the activities happening in their own lives.

See also: [[Hollywood values]]

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

[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Media]]
&

Supreme Court of the United States

2008-10-01T15:31:40Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

[[Image:Sup.jpg|thumb|260px|US Supreme Court Building]]
The '''Supreme Court of the United States''' (SCOTUS) is the highest court of the judiciary of the [[United States of America]]. Between 1800 and 1935, it met primarily in the basement of the United States [[Capitol]] building, then in the [[Old Senate Chamber]], until it moved into its present location at One First Street NE, [[Washington, D.C.]]

==Structure==
The Court is currently composed of eight [[Associate Justice]]s and one [[Chief Justice of the United States of America|Chief Justice]]. To assist them there are many clerks, guards, and staff. Cases are heard ''[[en banc]]'' whenever the Court is in session. Historians generally divide Court history into eras named after the Chief Justice then presiding (e.g., the [[Rehnquist Court]]).

Justices are appointed by the U.S. [[President]] with the advice and approval of the [[U.S. Senate]]. Justices must be approved by a simple majority of the Senate.

A list of pending cases to be heard on their merits by the Supreme Court, also known as petitions for which [[certiorari]] has been granted, is available on its website.<ref>[http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/07grantednotedlist.pdf Cases pending for the 2007 term]</ref> For a list of petitions granted and to be heard in fall 2007, see [[2007 Cert. Granted]].

==Opinions==
Prior to the Marshall Court, the Court issued [[opinion|opinions]] in ''seriatim''. This means that each Justice wrote his own opinion and delivered it from the bench. Currently, the Court issues one opinion, said to be "the opinion of the Court". Opinions tend to have the history of the case, followed by the Court's reasoning and action. Generally the opinion will be written by a member of the majority, chosen by either the Chief Justice or the most senior Justice in the majority.

When a majority of Justices agrees to the opinion, it is called the majority opinion. Occasionally, a majority of Justices agrees to the [[remedy]], yet a minority of Justices agrees with the main opinion. This is called a [[plurality opinion]].

Justices that disagree with the Court's action can and frequently do write [[dissenting opinion]]s, which state their objections to the ruling. When a Justice agrees with an action, but not the reasoning behind it, he may write a concurring opinion, which states the reasoning he would have used.

==Current members==
{|
|
{|class="wikitable"
!Name!!Date of Accession!!Appointed by!!Title!!General ideology
|-
|[[John Paul Stevens]]||December 19, 1975|||[[Gerald Ford]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[liberal]]
|-
|[[Antonin Scalia]]||September 26, 1986|||[[Ronald Reagan]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Anthony Kennedy]]||February 18, 1988|||[[Ronald Reagan]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||moderate/swing
|-
|[[David Souter]]||October 9, 1990|||[[George H. W. Bush]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[liberal]]
|-
|[[Clarence Thomas]]||October 23, 1991|||[[George H. W. Bush]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]||August 10, 1993|||[[Bill Clinton]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[liberal]]
|-
|[[Stephen Breyer]]||August 3, 1994|||[[Bill Clinton]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[liberal]]
|-
|[[John Roberts]]||September 29, 2005|||[[George W. Bush]]|||[[Chief Justice of the United States of America|Chief Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Samuel Alito]]||January 31, 2006|||[[George W. Bush]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|}
|[[Image:SCOTUS.jpg|400px|thumb|The Supreme Court of the United States, 2007]]
|}

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[Category:United States Law]]
&

Military

2008-10-01T15:31:40Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

'''Military''' (''latin: militaris - a soldier'') is an [[adjective]] meaning relating to, or characteristic of members of the armed forces.

'''''The military''''' is a noun that refers either to the armed forces of a country, or the personnel.

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/military/ What Liberals Say - Category: Military], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[category:military]]
&

Democrats

2008-10-01T15:31:35Z

WTurner: Reading edit summaries? Google {conservapedia commandments broken} instead!

#Redirect [[Democratic Party]]
&