Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Apple Inc.

2010-03-06T15:34:09Z

Piexing: Replaced the mention of Apple being liberal in the first sentence, as it is irrelevant.

[[Image:Apple-logo.png|right|thumb|150px|Apple Inc. logo]]
'''Apple Inc.''' is a corporation based out of Cupertino, California, that deals primarily in computer hardware, software, and their line of [[MP3]] players, [[iPod]]s. Founded on April 1st, 1976, by [[Steve Wozniak]] and [[Steve Jobs]], its first product was the Apple I. The two Steves founded the company in their garage and have since became one of the biggest tech companies around. On January 9th, 2007, Apple Computer Inc. officially changed its name to Apple Inc to include their other non computer products. That same day, they announced the revolutionary [[iPhone]], which according to Apple, combines "a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching."<ref>http://www.apple.com/iphone/</ref>

==Politics==
Apple supported the [[homosexual agenda]] by donating $100,000. to defeat [[Prop 8]] <ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> and named its operating system [[Darwin]].<ref>http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/</ref>
[[Al Gore]] was appointed to Apple's Board of Directors in 2003.<ref>http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/mar/19gore.html</ref>

==Original computers==
===The Apple I===
The Apple I was the first apple computer. The Apple I started out with just being a circuit sold to computer hobbyists. Later Apple realized that they could make more money by selling the Apple I all developed and put together instead of having the consumer build it themselves.
=== The [[Apple II]] ===

In 1977, however, Apple released the [[Apple II]], which was one of the first computers that came completely contained within a plastic case, motioning towards ''user-friendliness''. The main difference, however, was the screen display. Instead of just being able to display text, it would display graphics, charts, and eventually, color. Many small companies were buying these for use in their offices, but Steve Jobs had ambitions to expand.

=== The Apple III ===

The Apple III was created in response to Steve Jobs' wanting to move ahead with new innovations. He wanted to innovate, and as such, provided some questionable designs to the employees, such as it being shipped without a cooling fan, because Steve Jobs felt that having a loud obnoxious fan would interfere with his meditation. This particular defect caused the computer to break down, usually before it had reached its destination. Thousands were recalled.

===The Lisa===
The Lisa was named after Steve Jobs' daughter Lisa. The company had contests to come up for a computer acronym using the letters LISA. The Lisa was a failure because it was more expensive and not as powerful as the Macintosh.

=== The [[Macintosh]] ===

In 1984, the next Apple computer was released. Apple paired with Adobe to create Adobe [[PageMaker]]. The Macintosh was famous for its "1984" [[Super Bowl]] advertisement. The name of the device was taken from Steve Job's favorite type of apples the McIntosh apples. Despite the difference in spelling the name was also used by McIntosh Labs who brought certain legal problems into play. <ref> iCon: Steve Jobs </ref> The Macintosh had three major flaws. First, it only had six applications. Secondly the Macintosh did not have an internal hard drive to save to, so users constantly had to do the "Floppy disk Olympics." Lastly, the device was not expandable.

=== The Apple IIgs ===

The Apple IIgs was a mix between the two, but its main feature was that it was mouse driven.

==John Scully==
[[John Scully]] was appointed CEO of Apple by Steve Jobs because they would not let him run the company. Jobs picked Scully because he knew nothing about computers and would need to depend on Jobs for all decisions. This backfired on Jobs when he was forced to leave the company leaving control into the hand of a man who knew nothing about computers. When Jobs left the company was sent into despair. There was no vision and Scully was barely able to keep the company alive.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Apple Inc.]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Companies]]

Personal computer

2010-03-06T15:32:12Z

Piexing: Turned the second section into a paragraph.

A '''personal computer''' or PC, stands for a computing device that can be used at home. There was a question when personal computers first came out as to whether or not they would catch on or were a fad. Those who recognized the potential of personal computers turned out to be right, and one of the world's largest organizations, [[Microsoft]], and the world's richest man [[Bill Gates]], accomplished what they have in business because of personal computers.

Today the phrase "personal computer" is often used to describe any [[computing]] device that uses a Microsoft [[operating system]], usually Windows. However, a personal computer is still simply a computer meant for personal use, and can run any operating system, such as [[Linux]] or [[Mac OS X]].

[[Category:Information technology]]

Video games

2010-03-06T15:20:11Z

Piexing: I moved what was the introduction to the Popularity & Controversy section, where it seemed more fit, and added a short description to the beginning of the article.

'''Video games''' are computer games that use a video device such as a television or computer monitor to display the player's actions. They may be played on a computer dedicated to them, called a video game console, a [[personal computer]], or an arcade machine, which requires one to insert coins to play.

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[Simulation game|simulation]], [[role-playing]], [[sports]], [[action]] and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as ''[[Mass Effect]]'' (Role Playing and Third Person Shooting), or not fit nicely into any genre, like ''[[Katamari Damacy]]''.

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the 1980s until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with its original player base.

Video games are addictive activities often targeted at teenagers, sometimes with tragic results.<ref>Some claim that 2/3rds of videogamers are over 18 years old, but far more people are over that age and a much higher percentage of minors are videogamers.[http://www.pan-o-matic.com/blog/?p=45 Only a third of videogamers are under 18]</ref> Games are increasingly violent and offensive, attracting the attention of legislators in many states to protect the exploitation of children by them. Games such as ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' are very violent, sexually explicit, and feature [[criminal]] behavior. These games are rated "M 17+" for "Mature," but courts have stricken down laws preventing retailers from selling them to children, under an interpretation that the First Amendment protects offensive video games even for children.<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> Some people argue that violent video games cause violent behavior in some children, but such a link has yet to be conclusively proven. The effects of violent video games on the developing psyche of children and adolescents vary greatly and of course have much to do with the mental stability of the subject in question.

Serious crimes have been associated with video games, but nearly all mentions of video games in media coverage of said crimes are added for the sake of sensationalism and are irrelevant. For example, a 14-year-old brutally murdered a video arcade employee one morning and his cousin stands trial for murdering the store manager when he entered the store shortly thereafter.<ref>http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1212467732102240.xml&coll=1</ref>
In the [[United States|USA]], all retail games carry ratings from the [[ESRB]], a video game ratings organization.

===Violence===

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by ''[[Doom (video game series)|Doom]]'', ''[[Quake]]'', and the ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' series.

At least one study has shown that, contrary to the position mentioned above, kids who don't play video games at all seem to show more violent tendencies. Of course, as expected, those who played violent video games for large amounts of time also showed violent tendencies, however the study claims that this is a "risk marker", not an actual cause. <ref>http://wii.qj.net/New-research-reveals-kids-who-don-t-play-videogames-at-all-are-more-at-risk-of-violent-tendencies/pg/49/aid/118505 New research reveals kids who don't play video games at all are more at risk of violent tendencies</ref>

Multiple studies have shown a correlation between violent video games and levels of real life violence, caused by playing some of the aforementioned video games.<ref>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html</ref>

===Sexuality===

Although nudity is not prominent in [[western]] video games, there are various products containing sexually-suggestive material. One reason for the relative lack of explicitly sexual material in western games may be the refusal of [[Wal-Mart]] (the leading distributor of video games in the United States) to sell games carrying an "Adults-Only" rating.<ref>http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=440903</ref> One notable target of controversy is the ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' series after a third-party mod was released that allowed the player to engage in a mini-game containing explicit sexual material. Mods are, as "third-party" would imply, fan-made and are not the responsibility of the game's developer. Other sources of this criticism relate to the game ''[[Tomb Raider]]'' as it was one of the first games where a female character (the protagonist) is depicted and advertised as a sex symbol.<ref>Ashley, Robert. "The Secret History of Videogame Sex." Official Playstation Magazine Feb. 2006: 96-99.</ref>

== Video Games & Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the [[Halo (game)|Halo]] series, as well as [[Grand Theft Auto]]. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. [[Second Life]], an Internet-based virtual world, has blurred the lines between real-world and virtual world, and companies such as Adidas, Reebok, and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre, such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems. ''Bible Adventure'' in particular is infamous for it's poor design and playability.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The [[Breath of Fire Series|''Breath of Fire'' series]] and the ''[[Shin Megami Tensei]]'' games, in particular, use a god as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion in some way include the ''Final Fantasy'' series, ''[[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]]'', ''[[Black and White]]'', ''Heaven and Hell'', ''[[Xenogears]]'', ''[[Okami]]'', and the ''[[Tales]]'' series, particularly ''[[Tales of Symphonia]]''. Unfortunately, many (not all) of the aforementioned games present religion (or it's respective church and followers) as evil, fake, or having ulterior and nefarious motives.

Games may include a fictional religion as part of the setting if the use of a real religion may invite undesirable controversy.

Video game reviewers have sometimes unjustly attacked and reviewed games where real-world religion plays a notable role. One of the most prominent examples of this is the game ''[[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]]''.<ref>http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind</ref>

==Popular Video games==
*''[[Assassins Creed]]'' - Taking place, after a fashion, during the [[Crusades]]. Play as Altair, and kill leaders from both sides to stop a deadly plot.
*''[[Age of Empires]]'' - An [[Real-Time Strategy|RTS]] in which the player leads an ancient civilization.
*''[[Call of Duty]]'' - A series of [[first person shooters]] in which a player is either a soldier in World War II or a soldier involved in the [[War on Terror]].
*''[[Civilization]]'' - A strategy game in which the player leads a civilization from it's birth, and into the future.
*''[[Donkey Kong]]'' - An early platform game in which [[Mario]] (then known as "Jumpman") tries to save his girlfriend Pauline from a barrel-flinging ape named Donkey Kong. Both Donkey Kong and Mario went on to star in many other successful video games.
*''[[Final Fantasy]]'' - A very popular and long running [[RPG]] series in both the [[United States]] and [[Japan]]. Earlier games were rather child friendly, but the series has become more mature over time.
*''[[Gears of War]]'' - Mankind has been annihilated by an underground race of beings.
*''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' - A game series about gangster like characters who perform missions to rise to the top by killing, stealing, and other, sometimes violent, missions.
*''[[Guitar Hero]]'' - A game where players play the role of the [[guitar]]ist in a band. Uses a special controller in the shape of and played similarly to a guitar.
*''Half-Life'' and ''Half-Life 2'' - First Person Shooter series about Gordon Freeman, a luckless scientist turned hero-from-desperation. This game uses one of the leading physics engine in first person shooters, the Source engine.
*''[[Halo]] - A trilogy of games following a super soldier during a fictional future [[war]].
*''[[Harvest Moon]]'' - Farm life simulator, with many sequels spreading from various platforms. Character runs a farm, raises animals, and can eventually marry.
*''[[The Legend of Zelda]]'' - A popular series of fantasy action-adventure games.
*''[[Mass Effect]]'' - A science fiction RPG for mature players.
*''[[Medal of Honor]]'' - A first person shooter series usually taking place in the front lines of World War II.
*[[Mortal Kombat]] - Multi-player fighting game which is famous for violence, blood, and gory finishing moves called "fatalities".
*''[[NHL]]'' series - A series of Hockey games produced by EA Sports.
*''[[Pac-Man]]'' - An old maze game. It was very popular with kids and adults back in the eighties.
*''[[Portal]]'' - A popular first person shooter/puzzle game using the same game engine as ''Half-Life 2'' involving inter-dimensional travel through portals in an abandon testing facility. This game is known for its deadpan sense of humor.
*''[[Resident Evil]]'' - Survival/horror video game series, revolving around viral zombies and the survivors of the zombie attacks.
*''[[The Sims]]'' - A life simulator produced by EA.
*''[[Super Smash Brothers]]'' - Series of Nintendo fighting games. It mixes characters from different [[Nintendo]] franchises [with some exceptions] in wide environments.
*''[[Soul Calibur]]'' - A weapon-based fighting game. Revolves around the tale of two weapons, Soul Edge [Cursed] and Soul Calibur [Blessed], and those who fight for control or destruction of the weapons.
*''[[Street Fighter]]'' - One-on-one [[martial arts]] fighting game series, where a player selects one of various martial artists and battles other players or against computer-controlled characters.
*''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'' - Side-scrolling platform game series by [[Nintendo]]. Players play as Mario and Luigi, two Italian plumber brothers, who explore the Mushroom Kingdom in order to rescue Princess Peach from the evil Bowser [called Koopa in Japan]. Possibly the most well known game in the world.
*''[[Tomb Raider]]'' - Series of games following the adventures of Lara Croft.
*''[[Pong]]'' - the first real video game, resembling 2-d ping-pong.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.whattheyplay.com/ What They Play - the parent's guide to video games]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Talk:Video games

2010-03-06T15:04:49Z

Piexing: /* Biased article */

Alright... The source given at the end of the first paragraph is, honestly, useless. It doesn't prove any claim made in the paragraph, let alone the last sentence, and some of the stuff given there sounds absolutely ludicrious. 124 incidents of violence in 10 minutes? Unless you're counting every punch as an incident, that's incredibly high...

Anyway. Under normal circumstances I'd simply delete the reference and replace it with a citation needed tag, but given that I'm coming fresh of a banning for misinterpreting instructions, I leave it to you to decide whether or not to remove a source that really adds nothing to the article. Cheers. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Alright. Should nobody post a response to this in the next... Ehh, few hours, I'm going to replace that source with a fact tag. Reason: Source is irrelevant to that section of the article. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:55, 25 January 2008 (EST)

==Final Fantasy==
Oh dang. I just noticed the what the previous edits said about the series. It's about purging evil in a make believe world! Narnia is almost the same. (both have magic/occult themes!)

I've been playing the series for a while, what homosexuality has there been besides Kefka, the arguable transvestite, from FFVI? And transvestism?! So what if Cloud was needed to infiltrate an area via "en femme"? It's a short section of the game and it was a pixelated mess.

Sexuality, let me think (my memory is half good on gaming). VI, nope. VII, nope (Tifa was "top-heavy"). VIII, didn't play. IX, nope. X, underwater make-out scene and Lulu's attire is iffy. X-2, that massage mini-game freaked me out and their attire. XI, didn't play due to online. XII, still playing and the only dispute are the Vieras' attire. Undercover cops in prostitution have just as much sexuality, but it's a necessary good, no?

Suicide... not really (from my experience). Homicide, very much so. Sephiroth killed Aerith, so Cloud killed Sephiroth. The only time I can think of was when Tidus (FFX) jumped off the Fahrenheit at the end, but he was just an apparition anyway. Also, it's not like it glorifying it either.

Religion. FFXII, the villains defy "the gods/fates". What do they get? Most are burned up by their manufactured idols ("manufacted nethicite") while the others are destroyed by Ashelia and the crew. Gabranth also comes to see the errors of his ways and joins the final fight for good against his superior, Vayne. Gabranth was saved in one way or another. Ruling out the villains of Final Fantasy, there hasn't been--if my memory serves correct--a defiance/negativity towards religion... except maybe the false religion of Yevon, which said that a summoner should die for their people to rid the world of pain for 3 years, "Sin". FFX was about defeating "Sin" and the false gods.
I think I am done with my ranting for today. I would like to see some counter-points though. +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 22:18, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Many characters are unnecessarily sexualized (specially on concept art), just look at FFX-2. There's also a few sexual references here and there. (Though its not as bad as other games.) Also, Faris and Kuja are definitely transvestives.
:There's also plenty of suicide in FFVI, with at least two of your main characters practicing it. There's also Dyne in FFVII committing it.
:And if Final Fantasy Tactics wasn't a subtle attempt at subversion against Christianity, I don't know what it is. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::it isn't a subtle attempt at subverting christianity, it was a successful attempt to make money by creating a video game that took place in a fantasy world. (and as for the other things i have no idea cause i dont play FF, although their are other games with more violence and sexuallity, try picking on gta, that will be easier)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, yes, but more specifically it was a successful attempt to make money by creation a video game that took place in a fantasy world were Christianity is basically evil. I'll eventually get to work on the gta articles though. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:FFX-2 was Square's only first attempt to make an actual sequel. With the name that sequel brings it immediately brings less sales. How to counteract that? Scanty clothing! It's about making money. I preferred to use a party of 2 white mages and one dark knight (most amount of clothing), with the exception of using special dress-spheres when necessary (Riku's and Paine's special form were fully clothed). Gunner, hot pants and side skirt. Gun Mage, side skirt and midriff. Alchemist, nothing revealing. Warrior, bike shorts(?) at least. Dark Knight, nothing. Samurai, tube top Riku. Berserker, major problem. Songstress, miniskirt balanced with really up high boots/stockings. Black Mage, mix samurai with songstress format. White Mage, nothing. Lady Luck, problem. Mascot, definitely nothing wrong. Trainer, same top as Ashelia from FFXII--reveals top 1/3 of breasts. Actually useful dress-spheres: Berserker, White Mage, Lady Luck (if your timing is correct), Warrior, Songstress (if you give it time), and the special spheres.
:Weren't Kuja and Zidane both genderless genomes? How can a mechanically engineered, soulless being be a transvestite? They were containers for the souls of Terra. Souls have gender/sex. True nature, a purified version of the body/container God made for us to use. If you have no soul, and you're just a container, then you have no true nature/gender. Kuja absorbed a plethora of souls of the Terrans... woman, child, man. Wouldn't that make "him" multi-gendered?
:And.. I never played FF Tactics. I've played Mystic Quest, FFIII (JP), FFVI, FFVII, FFIX, FFX (best game ever! - spent 300 hours on it, 250 on one file), FFX-2 (just wanted to see how a sequel would be and what happened to Tidus), FFXII (still playing, good vocabulary too). +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 15:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, I don't doubt the sexualizing of women in the series (not just FFX-2) was made in an effort to increase sales for the games (I would even say it applies to other themes not suitable for children such as profanity), however, that doesn't make it right or more appropriate.

::Its true that Kuja is a genome, but they still have male bodies and are treated essentially like men in the game, in fact, you don't even get to know they aren't really human until nearly the end of the game. Also, even taking these technicalities in account, Faris (from FFV) is still transvestite. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 16:44, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::They also kind of had to assign a gender. You couldn't go a whole referring to the main antagonist as "it", "Kuja" or "zhe" (zhe is what some "genderless" people like to be called).

:::I have never actually played more than 10 minutes of FFV before deciding it wasn't worth the effort of not spending time on Dofus (a French-based [[MMORPG]]). +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:58, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"He" works as a pronoun for both genders, doesn't it? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::For conservatives, it does. My friend--"genderless by choice", born a she, and liberal--wishes to be known as "zhe". Also, Society builds on being [[politically correct]]. Companies can't go about saying every unknown gendered person, Quina Quen (FFIX), is a he... that would offend too many potential consumers. Turning off potential consumers means a loss for future profits too. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 12:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I always thought that was an attempt at comedy actually. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 21:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sex in video games==
I found something useful in an older release of the Official Playstation Magazine about sex in videogames.

*1982 - Custer's Revenge (Atari 2600) - The goal of the game was to have sex with a Native American woman by dodging arrows.
*1990 - River City Ransom (Nintendo Entertainment System) - During a certain part of the game you can enter the sauna and it shows a naked man-butt.
*1996 - Tomb Raider (PS1) - Introduced polygon breasts to the gaming world.
*1998 - Metal Gear Solid (PS1) - "bathroom scene"
*2000 - Dead or Alive 2: Hardcore (PS2) - "perfected" polygon breasts by adding a realistic bouncing effect.
*2001 - Fear Effect 2: Retro Helix (PS1) - featured a lesbian couple for protagonists and several make-out scenes and partial nudity.
*2001 - Rez (PS2 - Japan) - A trance music game with optional USB vibrator accessory.
*2002 - BMX XXX (PS2) - nude characters and unlockable strip tease videos
*2004 - Leisure Suit Larry (PS2) - sex-themed minigames
*2004 - GTA: San Andreas (PS2) - "Hot Coffee"
*2005 - Playboy: The Mansion (PS2) - sexual scenes (kind of obvious)
*2005 - God of War (PS2) - topless female characters
*2005 - Pornographic UMDs (PSP - Japan)
<ref>Ashley, Robert. "The Secret History of Videogame Sex." Official Playstation Magazine Feb. 2006: 96-99.</ref>

:Uh, buddy boy, that Lara Croft code was an April Fool's joke. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::Right, right. I forgot about that... I never was one for reading the entire article. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 15:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm adding a section about this if nobody minds. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::::God of War also included mini-games involving the lead character having sex with various women. While the acts were not pictured on screen (the in-game views were moved to different parts of the rooms), the player had to press various buttons at the right time and was treated to all the sounds of the sex acts. Additionally, during one of the sex scenes, the camera focused on a fountain statue of a urinating young boy which achieved an erection during the scene and "ejaculated." This filth can be viewed on YouTube if anyone (i.e. any liberal) doubts me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Link With Crime==
I think the statement in the first paragraph—I added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag but took it out after some consideration— needs a link to some sort of study linking the two, or it needs to be reworded. I don't believe a singular incident can be evidence for this claim.
--[[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 11:59, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:It's clear that crimes have been ''associated'' with video games (the Columbine killers made custom levels in Doom that matched their school or some such), so the statement as written is true. The problem comes if you try to make a large scale correlation -- outside of anecdotal evidence, I don't think any evidence has ever been found. What few individual correlations I've heard, there's no evidence that the video game ''caused'' the violence. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Jack Thompson ==

Maybe we should remove the mention of Jack Thompson? He wasn't really a "target" of the media, and with his recent disbarrment, it might make a stronger case without mention of him. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 17:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:Alternatively, it makes his criticisms seem more like the goofiness that they realy are ;-) You are right about the "target" thing though; most "targeted" media coverage was from gamer sites and comics. If the main stream media had anything about him he wasn't really a "target". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

==People who actually...==
Can we get some people who actually play video games to edit this article? It's becoming biased based on what some editors see on TV.

Sure the popular games are the ones seen on TV or the ones that already have loyal fans, but there are still a majority of non-violent games out there.

Don't generalize because you don't understand. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:10, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

===Violence retort===
:And a funny retort to the violence "found" in gamers can be responded with:
::"Violence in gamers is not caused by video games themselves, but rather, the crappy movies that are "based" off of the video games." --VGCats & Beep Boop
[[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:19, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

== Targeted at teenagers? ==

It is not true that all video games are targeted at teenagers. It is true that video games are popular with teenagers, but they are also popular with people in their twenties. One could maybe make some useful link, but I think the first sentence should just be removed of its reference to teenagers. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 08:39, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Biased article ==

This is the most biased article I have ever seen. The opening sentence itself is sickening.

:So it looks like there is some controversy about this article. Is it possible to unlock it to editing? The vandals are surely gone now.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 18:25, 9 January 2010 (EST)

::I don't know about vandals, but I'd like to see this unlocked... I think that at the moment, the article could use a bit of improvement. The first paragraph says some things that make me frown. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 21:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::I completely agree. The first sentence of the article should describe what video games actually are, not make a blatant statement against them. It's appalling that this article is stuck in the state it's in currently. [[User:Piexing|Piexing]] 9:50, 6 March 2010 (EST)

::::Another study was just published documenting the harm. But I'll unlock the entry to see if you can improve it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 6 March 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you. It's okay to have some of the article dedicated to that, but for it to be in the first sentence seems kind of ridiculous. [[User:Piexing|Piexing]] 10:04, 6 March 2010 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2010-03-06T14:59:48Z

Piexing:

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:I think perhaps this article doesnt talk about the sinful nature of man because it is about political affiliation rather than religious. Or are you pointing out that all non-conservatives are innately sinful?

::I think "political affiliation" is slightly off the mark. This is not about party affiliation. This article is about one's outlook as expressed in political terminology, which of course is highly correlated with how one votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?
:Agreed. It definitely does not look good at its present state where these numbers have nothing to back them up -- even if listed as estimates. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 18:20, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:: It's an estimate, and a work in progress. Do you doubt its truth? Perhaps you're simply saying that a liberal newspaper would not admit this, and you'd be right about that. But the truth is not constrained by what liberals will admit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:29, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::: I was just stating my curiosity -- one that I believe most readers share -- as to how those numbers came about. As to its validity, I have no way of knowing but based on my own encounters, those numbers look about right for the most part, except for one group that I believe is missing on that list. I know quite a few non-conservatives who, with an open mind, simply weighed conservative values against non-conservative values and decided that they identified more with non-conservative values. Their values usually gravitate towards "freedom of choice", as defined by themselves. (Obviously we disagree with it)
Examples include: Freedom to choose abortion, freedom to choose religion, freedom to choose a "lifestyle", etc. You might say that these people fall into the ''10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like irresponsible sexual promiscuity'' -- and that's true for some, but not for others. Some non-conservatives aren't interested in engaging in sexual promiscuity, dwelling in person temptation and self-destruction; they simply believe that it should be up to each individual if they choose to do so. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 21:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::As I said it would be interesting to read how these estimates were arrived at. I have no idea what the percentages should be and would love to see the data but I know that since this is an essay that a cite is not required and my not be possible to get in any case. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:41, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly asks "Do you doubt its [the statistics'] truth?" To which I respond, yes, I do doubt it, but more importantly I doubt very much that these "statistics" should be referred to as such. I, further, dispute WillB's claim that because this is an essay Aschlafly is not obligated to provide citations or data to support his claim.

My basic issue here is that absent any sort of supporting documentation these "estimates" are nothing of the sort and are, instead, simply guesses. A guess is not the same as a statistical estimate. To understand why, consider ASchlafly's first cited reason, "Did not hear about conservative principles...", which I will refer to as Claim A. Now, in theory Claim A is true of some portion of the population (A "population" being defined as the set of things we're interested in studying. In this case, for the sake of argument, we'll assume the population is American citizens or legal residents). This value is known as a population parameter and we will refer to it as "Mu", following the common statistical practice of referring to true population values with Greek symbols. Now, the difficulty is that the population is too large for us to assess as a whole. To deal with this, we take a sample of the population- for example, a random sample. Now, the composition of a true random sample is determined by its parent population. So, for example, if Claim A is true of 40% of the population, as ASchlafly asserts, then a true random sample will- in theory- contain the same proportion of persons for whom Claim A is true. The quantity in the sample for whom Claim A is true will be referred to as X-bar, a symbol used to refer to the arithmetic mean of a sample, and is not written in Greek as it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter. So, if our random sample is perfect Mu should equal x-bar.

Now, this is true in theory, but in practice things get tricky. While a true random sample is the ideal, it is also the case that larger samples provide better estimates (i.e. more accurate values of x-bar) than smaller samples. Thus, it is almost always the case that Mu does not equal x-bar but rather is only approximately equal to x-bar. The relation between a particular value of x-bar and the value of Mu is determined using two things: the estimated [[standard deviation]] of a distribution of means and a [[confidence interval]]. The distribution of means is a mathematical construct that indicates how often we ought to see the x-bar of a sample of a given size, n, vary by a certain amount from the value of Mu. For our purposes we would estimate it using sample information by dividing the sample variance by n (i.e the sample size) and then taking the square root. We will refer to this as SDm (i.e. the standard deviation of the distribution of means). We would then use this value to construct a confidence interval. A confidence interval is a range of scores within which we are certain to a specific probability that we will find Mu. Put differently, it is like saying, "The true population value is x-bar plus or minus y amount, with a certainty of 95%." Confidence intervals are almost always included with point estimates (i.e. estimates of a specific value, such as x-bar) because statisticians are well aware that x-bar almost never precisely equals Mu. We would construct our confidence interval by taking x-bar and then adding, and subtracting, the value of the product of SDm and a t-value corresponding to our desired level of certainty and degrees of freedom (i.e. x-bar + (SDm)(t-value) and x-bar - (SDm)(t-value)). A t-value is a score taken from the t-distribution, which is an approximation of the [[normal distribution]] used when a smaller sample size produces non-normality. The t-distribution asymptotically approximates the normal distribution, so with large sample sizes you can essentially use the normal distribution instead. The degrees of freedom in this case are equal to n-1. So, if we drew a sample of 101 people and wanted to be 99% sure that our confidence interval included Mu then we would use a t-value of 2.626. So, in summation, using the sample information we can compute not simply an estimate of the value of Mu (i.e. x-bar) but also an interval within which we can be confident (e.g. 99% certain) that the true value of Mu lies. Obviously, the smaller the confidence interval, the more exact our estimate of Mu is likely to be and, if we assume that the sample x-bar is derived from is a perfect random sample, then the quality of our estimate is based entirely on sample size. Further, the relationships discussed above are well-documented empirically and have been proven out by mathematicians and statisticians since about the turn of the century.

The reality, of course, is that samples are rarely if ever perfectly random. Sampling error inevitably creeps in and, as a result, confidence intervals often have to be adjusted for this added error. If we cannot determine the extent of the sampling error's influence on our statistics then there is no mathematical adjustment possible and we, instead, have to assess the robustness of our estimates against the probable size of the error. And what all this means is that something is a statistical estimate rather than an offhand guess precisely because it includes not only a point estimate (e.g. 40% of the population subscribes to Claim A) but also a confidence interval around that point estimate (e.g. plus or minus 10%). Moreover, the point estimates as well as the confidence intervals are produced using a set of established procedures that are rooted in the mathematical characteristics of both population/sample relationships and the estimators (i.e. the computations used to produce the point estimates). Given that this is the case, point estimates are almost always provided with confidence intervals or standard errors and, additionally, information must be provided in order to allow others to assess the likely accuracy of the estimates.

ASchlafly has provided a set of point estimates generated in an unknown manner from unknown data. He has included no confidence intervals and no indication of the degree of accuracy in these estimates. As a result they are not statistical estimates and in no way should be referred to as the product of "statistical analysis". They are, to the contrary, nothing more or less than offhand guesses and should be referred to as such. On the other hand, if ASchlafly has some basis for these point estimates he should indicate where the data derive from and provide- at a bare minimum- the confidence intervals around these estimates as well as an outline indicating how he produced those intervals.

The point of statistics is not simply to compute an answer (e.g. a point estimate) but to produce along with it an estimate of the degree or error contained in that estimate. No human, after all, is perfect and it is in the nature of statistics to honestly quantify that imperfection. Absent confidence intervals or standard errors, and some understanding of how the data were gathered the appropriate response to the question "Do you doubt its truth" from anyone who is marginally competent in statistics must be "yes." Moreover, if ASchlafly wishes to label these assertions as "statistical estimates" then it is his responsibility to justify them in the manner accepted by statisticians. Otherwise, they should be (correctly) labeled as guesses.

Understand, the substance of my objection has nothing to do with whether or not ASchlafly's claims are correct but, rather, with the appropriateness of their presentation and treatment. -Drek
:Any reasonable argument should be capable of being put in two or three concise paragraphs, Drek. Your lengthy and confused screed doesn't add any light to this matter, I'm afraid. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::No sweat: ASchlafly's "statistics" are not statistics but guesses. He can demonstrate to the contrary by providing adequate citations to his data source as well as indicating the techniques used to generate the point estimates as well as confidence intervals and/or standard errors. Until he does so, referring to his guesses as "statistical analysis" is, at best, an exaggeration. Leaving this essay as-is saps credibility from both Conservapedia generally and ASchlafly particularly. See the above "confused screed" for a detailed explanation of my concerns. It's good to be succinct, but if Conservapedia is meant as an educational resource- and the criticism of Wikipedia for not offering courses lends support to that notion- then it's even better to be sufficiently thorough for students to follow the dispute. Or, as Beatrice Wright puts it, "You must learn to write in such a way that it will be as easy as possible for your critics to know why they disagree with you." -Drek
:::Andrew Schlafly is a qualified and experienced statistician and I'd certainly trust his judgement; not to sound suspicious, but in what way are you qualified to make such sweeping statements about this aricle? Also, you can be sure that his analyses and his estimates are based on a mature and thorough understanding of the issue being examined. Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::"Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context." Exactly right, and as you will notice, I am asking for a disclosure of that context so that we can all assess the accuracy and reliability of ASchlafly's claims for ourselves. If he is, indeed, a "...qualified and experienced statistician..." as you assert and his numbers are based on good data and appropriate techniques, this should be trivially easy. I also appreciate that you trust his judgment but statistics aren't about trusting someone's judgment, they are about verifiable results. Whether you or I view ASchlafly as a competent statistician has no bearing on the fact that he has not, at present, provided any justification whatsoever for the figures presented. Asking about my qualifications is something of an ad hominem since I have presented a lengthy explanation of why I question ASchlafly's claims. Rather than ask how I know what I do, why not respond substantively to my points? Regardless, while I have no expectation that you will take my word for it, I have been teaching statistics in an American four-year university for six years. -Drek
:::::I'm sorry you take it as an ad hom; I'm sure you appreciate that in such an environment a certain caution about people's claimed expertise is perhaps excusable. And I certainly accept your word as to your post and experience. But this is more than a pure, abstract, mathematical, dare I say professorial treatment of statistics. This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature, and in particular the nature of the Liberal-minded human, which is an additional layer of expertise which possibly you do not have - although, to be fair, working in a university (is it a public funded institution?) you would very likely be exposed daily to all kinds of Liberal nonsense. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::"This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature..." The thing is, Bugler, that statistics are an applied branch of mathematics. Their express purpose is to allow us to extract certainty from the vapor of possibility or, less metaphorically, to allow us to derive useful knowledge from messy research situations. Indeed, multivariate methods like regression are often used when the purity of experimental control is unattainable. Statistics can only provide this service reliably, however, when there is a full disclosure of how they are obtained. If the data are valid, the procedures appropriate, and the necessary mathematical assumptions not grievously violated, then the conclusions may be trusted to a particular degree of certainty. That ASchlafly's statistics are being used to asses the "...nature of the Liberal-minded human..." is effectively irrelevant. I do not ask that ASchlafly produce perfect statistics, but unless and until he provides a basis for judging his numbers, they cannot be regarded as anything more than his personal opinion. I appreciate your accepting my claimed expertise on my word, however. I have worked at both public and private universities and you will understand that the various strains of "nonsense" that I have encountered from a variety of ideological camps underlies my interest in seeing that statistical methods are not abused. If statistics are to be used to adjudicate between rival claims, then we must emphasize the need for them to be performed correctly. More simply, the extent to which I agree or disagree with the outcome of an analysis has no bearing on whether or not it was done correctly. And, as a side note, I have enjoyed our chat, but will probably be away from my computer for the next day or so for travel. If I do not respond to further comments, please understand it is not out of rudeness. -Drek
:::::::: of course. ''Bon voyage!'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Drek, you really "take the cake" for the most long-winded liberal rant in recent memory here. The field of statistics does include estimates, and no one doubts that that there are percentages for each category listed. Are the estimates off slightly? Perhaps, but be specific about which one you think may be off.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::Mr. Schlafly,

::::::::::It has taken me a long time to respond to your more or less final remarks on this subject. This has been due to travel during the Christmas holidays so that my wife and I would be with family as well as a desire to take my time in thinking before responding. I will attempt to answer each of your remarks directly.

::::::::::First, I am sorry that you regard my concerns as a "liberal rant." I am not interested in the politics of this article but only in the legitimacy of labeling your estimates with the heading of "Statistical Analysis." Labeling my arguments "liberal" does nothing to refute them.

::::::::::Second, I never claimed that statistics do not include estimates. Indeed, in the second paragraph of my original comments I remarked, "...it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter." Your response to me that "The field of statistics does include estimates..." has nothing to do with what I said. Do I think your estimates off "slightly"? Without question- all estimates can safely be said to deviate from the true population values by at least a small amount. This is a statistical reality. As to which I think may be off- I regard all of them suspect as you have provided no information about where these estimates derive from.

::::::::::Except, that isn't really true. In a response to FernoKlump at 21:22 on December 16, 2008 you remark that, "Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic." This is the only time you have ever provided anything even approximating a citation for these estimates. Unfortunately, it does nothing to alay my fears. In regards to "experience," as I know you are familiar with the common statistical saying "Correlation does not equal causation," allow me to remind you of another common statistical saying: "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'" That is to say, no individual's experiences- no matter how reasonable and observant they are- can substitute for properly gathered information. The reason is simple: the world is a large place and we are, individually, very small. We only perceive the small slice of reality that we ourselves occupy and fail to observe the world from any other position. As such, even if we suppose that there are no biases in our perceptions whatsoever (a superhuman claim) it is vanishingly unlikely that those perceptions match perfectly with observable reality. In regards to "logic" I can only remind you that logic is a poor guide if one has flawed information. If we believe that ill health is caused by imbalances in the humors of the body, it is perfectly logical to treat a variety of disorders with bloodletting. Yet, if we evaluate this practice scientifically we find that in most cases it does more harm than good. Good logic is no substitute for good data.

::::::::::I suspect that you will not find my arguments above compelling, so please allow me to present a handful of additional points. The 2006 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines "statistics" as: "1. The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling. 2. Numerical data." WordNet 3.0 defines it as, "a branch of applied mathematics concerned with the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and the use of probability theory to estimate population parameters." The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines it as, "1. The branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data. Statistics is especially useful in drawing general conclusions about a set of data from a sample of the data. 2. Numerical data." Finally, if we examine Conservapedia's own article on statistics we find this in the first paragraph: "Statistics is the application of mathematics to the understanding of data. It involves all stages of data collection and processing from the initial collection, to the analysis and ultimately to the conclusions and interpretations of the data." You will note the primacy of data in all of these definitions. Nowhere do any of these sources refer to "experience" or "logic" with the same emphasis as they do to "data." Likewise, I can review my books on statistics as long as you like and will never find a term in any equation where "experience" is to be added, while all deal in one way or another with data.

::::::::::At this point I consider that you have finally revealed that as these estimates are based on "experience and logic" rather than data, you have conceded that they are not the product of statistical analysis. I do not object to your referring to them as estimates, but do object in the strongest terms to your labeling them "statistical analysis." Your estimates are not the product of statistics. You can accuse me of producing another liberal rant, but that does not make me wrong. You can scold people for "carping," but that does not make your estimates reliable. This is not politics, this is mathematics. -Drek

::::::::: He's not claiming the statistics are wrong, he's saying that they are meaningless if the method of finding them is withheld. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 20:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic. Instead of carping, please contribute.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I have a quick question for Aschlafly. I notice that the percentages in the Statistical analysis section add up to exactly 100. I find this a little confusing as I don't see any reason that the events listed should be mutually exclusive. Surely a person could be a liberal for many of the reasons given? [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:43, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: They refer to the ''primary'' reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:13, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:: Hmmm, I suppose that could work. However in this instance it could be very difficult to define what we mean by the primary reason. Typically in such analysis one could self-reporting, however I doubt that would work in this case :) [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Evidently not - case closed.---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 10:18, 1 January 2009 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

==A further suggestion==
It struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result of incipient or presenting mental illness. Just as it has been widely demonstrated that Liberal beliefs can lead to psychiatric conditions (per http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Do_Liberal_Teachings_Cause_Mental_Illness%3F ), so there might also be a reciprocal effect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:19, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Abstract" principles ==

I don't define "more guns, less crime" and "less taxes, more revenue" as abstract characteristics. There are statistics to back up both claims, as there are statistics to support a counter-claim to either. Those statements are based off of concrete observations and statistics. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: The observation "more guns, less crime" does entail a slight abstraction, and there are people who may have trouble understanding. Statistics confirm it, as does logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::I don't doubt that people may have trouble understanding. However if it is statistically confirmed, where is the abstraction? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::: You can always find someone to dispute statistics, as your own posting demonstrates. The real obstacle to some is grasping the abstraction of the logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 14:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::I think we're arguing for the same side here, Andy. I'm not disputing any statistics; that's my point. The statistics are there ''plain as day'' that an armed citizenry opposes crime. I would say it's just blind ignorance (or faulty logic) to believe otherwise as opposed to an abstraction. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I don't think someone having, to use popular terminology, an IQ of less than 100 can easily understand the truth of "more guns, less crime." Abstractions become more difficult to understand the lower the intelligence. Frankly, this abstraction strikes many highly intelligent people as wrong at first glance, before thinking more abstractly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Tweaking the Statistics==
With all due deference to Andy's knowledge on the subject, I believe that it would be beneficial to consider reweighting the estimates for why people choose to remain liberal, despite superior arguments for conservatism, as follows:

:* 25%: did not hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them until ''after'' they made up their mind, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, and refuse to reconsider;
:* 25%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like sexual promiscuity;
:* 20%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent, and refuse to rise above the animosity;
:* 10%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers;
:* 10%: mistakenly feel that conservative values and benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family, not realizing the availability and benefits to all, including children of divorced parents;
:* 5%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest; and
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas.

The largest reason that people remain liberal is clearly their desire to have their immoral and atheistic actions become more socially acceptable so that they can justify such lifestyles to themselves and others. Being disciplined by conservatives goes hand in hand with this - liberals do not like people pointing out that their lifestyle choices are wrong and detrimental to the country as a whole. It is primarily conservatives who are willing to call a spade a spade and chastise immoral conduct. I decreased the point about hearing about conservative principles later in life because the vast majority of United States citizens are raised in Christian churches and are taught the Bible's conservative principles from a young age. It is only once they are school-aged that liberal indoctrination can begin.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: Good insights, but American kids get indoctrinated by public schools and television at young ages prior to (and during) their formation of their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:: Just one question: You are claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (Usual disclaimers apply)
:: Okay, two questions: I would still like to see a source for those statistics. "Experience and logic" isn't enough; show me the data.
:::(The silence that will likely follow a response to the second question will not necessarily indicate acceptance of the argument it presents; more likely, it will mean that I believe a response won't add anything.)
::-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::: The more logical a liberal is the less likely he will remain a liberal. Liberals do better in gaining adherents by avoiding logic. If you have a logical argument for a liberal position, then I'd love to hear it.

::: References are being added to the entry. Feel free to add some yourselves, unless you think that liberals never become conservatives (which is demonstrably false).--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::You didn't answer my first question. Are you claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (I'm just looking for a yes or a no, not an essay.) -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:38, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Your question is incoherent. What does "that position" refer to? Are you referring to a specific position (e.g., gun control), or a general ideology (e.g., being a liberal)?

::::: In general, liberal views are not based on logic. There are examples of superficial liberal appeal to logic (e.g., to believe that banning guns will reduce crime), but it doesn't take long to show the error in the logic. Many liberals make superficially logical arguments simply to mislead others who are not bright enough to see the flaw.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Given that I didn't mention anything other than liberalism, it seems obvious that's what I'm referring to. I'll ask again: Are you arguing that no liberal has ever become a liberal through logical thought? "Yes" or "no" will do. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: No one has become a liberal through ''truthful'' logical thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:25, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Dennis Prager is one of my favorite thinkers, and took this up at length, proving what Andy says is true.
<blockquote>
"With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today, those guidelines are "feelings". With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, ''personal feelings have supplanted universal standards''. In fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe." [http://www.orthodoxnet.com/archives/religious_articles.shtml Does religion make people better or worse, Dennis Prager - 24 columns on topic]

</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:27, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==TV Shows==

How about some citations or examples for South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana? Well, the first two are somewhat political anyway I guess. But Hannah Montana? Please, example or citation. Did you know Billy Ray Cyrus is with Sean Hannity on the Freedom Concert, and Miley Cyrus is a strong Christian? [[User:AddisonDM]] 28 December 2008

: I don't watch TV, so I hope someone else can help out here!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Hannah Montana is a kid's show. I don't watch it often but it does not seem to be ether conservative or liberal. I think it should be removed from the list of liberal TV shows. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 14:49, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Don't say South Park pushes liberal values. Matt Stone and Trey Parker are both libertarians. For example in a certain episode, a one Mr. Reiner tries to take down the local tobacco company, and in the end he is portrayed as ridiculous, out of touch, and the townspeople rally around the tobacco company. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 14:20, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: [[Libertarians]] are socially [[liberal]]. You could benefit from our entries on both. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::I know what socially liberal and libertarian are defined as. What I am gettng at is that the show is wrongly heaped. Another example could be the show's mockery of the attempt to ban the N word through an entire episode. Besides it's crassness, the show is one the most balanced on TV and it handles issues with maturity while throwing a mask of fart jokes to add some comic relief.
As for The Simpsons, the show does lean leftward, but gives both sides a say. For instance, the show makes scatig comments about neo-hippies, President Carter, and President Clinton. Ned Flanders is often a set up but the jokes are never hugely inflammatory (to put it in perspective if someone made jokes about my POV at that level, I'd let it slide, maybe even let a smile crack through). And if you can't laugh at yourself, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 21:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

By the way I'm glad Hannah Montana is off the list. I don't think it is really liberal, and there are definitely more harmful shows that could be listed instead. [[User:AddisonDM]] 6 January 2009

== Statistics ==

Where did the author of the various statistics get their information? It looks to me like the information was fabricated from thin air. In fact, the entire article makes the conservative movement look bad because we come off as extremely arrogant. This is no way to convince liberals to see reason; it only solidifies their belief that we are unable to see any side but our own. This article will make us more enemies than friends.
[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 14:57, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: The estimates are based on experience and available articles. More citations can be added and I encourage you to do so. Is there a particular statement that you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:07, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::My problem is that the entire article in general is committing the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". Rather than directly confronting liberal ideas, it uses weighted phrases inclusively describing ''all'' liberals as: "close-minded", "irrational", having "poor abstract thinking", and having "arrogance" to create a view that makes all liberals to seem like horrible people. The article seethes with hypocrisy from these statements. If we should seek to show liberals that their views are incorrect, we should combat on '''issues''', not participate in labeling a person simply based off of their political views.
::The article should be rewritten following the '''title'''. As it asks the question "Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?", it should cover more than just liberalism, as there are many political movements ''other than'' conservatism and liberalism. To name a few other major movements: libertarianism, federalism, and marxism. Followers of each political movement have different reasons for existing (be they world events, nationality, socioeconomic class, etc.)
::But to summarize an ideal article under this topic: non-conservatives exist because humans think differently. Because there is such a staggeringly large number of ideologies, sub-ideologies, and other ways to view the world, one would be hard-pressed to find two people who thought that the world should exist in the exact same way. To further compound this, there is no easily definable line that separates one ideology from another because many people take their beliefs from a ''variety'' of political movements.
::Thank you for reading this, and best regards for the new year!
::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 23:15, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::: Your comments are thoughtful, and thought-provoking. Thank you. But there are some insights in this entry worth developing. Liberals do try to keep conservative ideas from reaching people. Why? Because many people are liberal simply because they haven't heard conservative principles with an open mind. If they are liberal for long enough, then the mind is closed and will not reconsider.

::: Politics is a battle for control of the future. Liberals know how to play the game to serve their purposes. The percentages might be tweaked a bit, but just watch how the liberals themselves behave. They censor and demonize conservatives, for example, and this entry explains why. Just look at the beginning of the entry by [[Wikipedia]] on Conservapedia and you can see the liberal strategy in action.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:27, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:::: You are correct in saying that liberals try to keep conservative ideals from spreading. However, when looking at the scheme of things from a larger perspective, it quickly becomes noticeable that ''all'' political movements attempt to hinder those that are (or even simply those that they see to be) opposed to themselves. The Romans tried to hinder Christians; Catholics hindered heliocentrism; atheists hinder theists; and ''theists hinder atheists''. Censoring and demonizing opposition is not a new method developed by liberals for hindering conservatives: it has been a tool of politics for ages. But even so, is this article currently not a monument to demonizing liberals? ''Even though'' '''some''' liberals demonize us, ''it does not make it right for us to demonize them.'' We need to show that we are above that. We need to show that the conservative movement is above pointing the finger and telling nasty stories like schoolchildren.

:::: To add some further perspective: read your previous post. In your mind replace "conservative" with "liberal" and "liberal" with "conservative". Does it make the post any less true? ''Have we removed the plank from our own eye?''

:::: Thank you for taking the time to read this with an open mind. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 18:54, 1 January 2009 (EST)

===Percentages===
It is possible for 20% of one group of people to also be in the 15% of another group of people. It's a type of "inclusive clause" -- I'm not sure of the proper term for it. Here's a math problem from a while ago...
:There are 1000 students in a school. 35% like math, 60% like history, and 75% like both (disregard the existence of other subjects). How many students only like history? (I messed up on the quoting of the problem, but you can figure out what I'm trying to convey) 
You did not need to readjust the percentages because a new item was added to the "Statistical" list. [[User:ZacharyM|ZacharyM]] 00:21, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::Good point, but untrue when listing the ''primary'' reasons (or favorite courses).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Christianity ==

I would like to point out that also a lot of people become '''liberal''' on conversion to Christianity as they feel that liberalism is more consistent with the Bible than conservatism. My personal belief is that both are very inconsistent on different points, and I've voted both ways. --[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]] 10:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Definitions ==

Surely the answer to this question is self-evident. Conservative is a relative term as is liberal. To put it simply, conservatives exist because liberals do. If everyone had exactly the same views on all issues then there would be no need for a word to describe them. Although as the usage here implies, they are now used as set terms to describe a set of views, it must be remembered that there is a spectrum of political views. As such the word conservative is best used as a relative term, as is the case with liberal. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== Mystery:Why Are There People Who Don't Agree With You? ==
I don't understand why you are narrow-minded enough to think it impossible for others to think differently. This article seriously needs to be removed. It just serves as another reason for people to dislike Conservapedia. [[User:Piexing|Piexing]] 9:59, 6 March 2010 (EST)

Talk:Video games

2010-03-06T14:50:19Z

Piexing: /* Biased article */

Ann Coulter

2010-03-06T14:45:55Z

Piexing:

[[Image:Coulter2006.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''.]]
'''Ann Hart Coulter''' (b. 1961) is a right-wing political commentator notable for her seven books, all of which defame liberals.

She is an [[attorney]], legal affairs correspondent, social commentator and a well known political pundit.
She has written seven bestselling books on U.S. politics. U.S. Federal Judge [[Richard Posner]] called her one of America's top public intellectuals.<ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] "Data for tables in Chapter 5 of Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline" where Posner talks about the data he used for his book ''Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline''.</ref><ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] Table II, which is Posner's data for 607 public intellectuals. A PDF search of "Coulter" will show she is on Posner's list.</ref>

Coulter's primary focus is exposing the perceived faults of [[liberalism]], and she has enjoyed a popular following for her strong defense of family values against [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]].
She is well known for her forthright statements against those who wish to hurt the [[United States]].

Coulter is a high profile female [[conservative]], in line with [[Phyllis Schlafly]] and [[Condoleezza Rice]]. Her books and strong speaking style have endeared her to fans and infuriated opponents.

As a [[Christian]], Coulter adheres to the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition the view that [[human being]]s are utterly and distinctly apart from other species.

Being an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and her critics often feign being offended.<ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, [[hirsute]], somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)]</ref><ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'f*****.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html]</ref>

Coulter made headlines during the 2008 Presidential primaries by endorsing [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] for President instead of [[John McCain]]. Coulter asserted that McCain is not conservative, but [[liberal]].

==Views on the Democratic Party==

Coulter says that the [[Democratic Party]] has a "history of supporting [[slavery]], [[segregation]], racial preferences, [[George Wallace]] and [[Bull Connor]]." [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35188]

==Books==

Some of her books include
*''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]]'' (2002)
*''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]]'' (2003)
*''[[Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism]]'' (2004)
*''[[How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)]]'' (2005)
*''[[Godless: The Church of Liberalism]]'' (2007)
*''[[If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans]]'' (2007)
*''[[Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America]]'' (2009)

In ''Godless'', Coulter illustrates how liberals make a [[religion]] out of their beliefs, which they follow with the sort of intolerant zeal which they claim [[fundamentalist]]s do. "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul [and] that we are moral beings in God's image." (pg. 3)

==Quotes==

* "Whether they are defending the [[Soviet Union]] or bleating for [[Saddam Hussein]], liberals are always against [[United States of America|America]]. They are either traitors or idiots ... "<Ref>''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''</ref>
* "My only regret with [[Timothy McVeigh]] is he did not go to the [[New York Times]] Building." She later clarified "Of course I regret [saying] it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm 9/11 Commissioner Criticizes Coulter's 'Hate-Filled Attack'] Associated Press story in USA Today. "'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,' The New York Observer quoted her as saying on Aug. 20, 2002. She clarified those remarks with RightWingNews.com: 'Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."'"</ref><ref>Hawkins, [http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php An Interview With Ann Coulter], Right Wing News.</ref>

* "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say." (The view that Christians are perfected Jews is a common belief among Jewish converts to Christianity, who view Christianity as a natural continuation of Judaism.

* "Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture — those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to [[Darfur]], a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it... These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?...Darfur is not the threat... though a hostage-taking, [[Holocaust]]-denying lunatic who doesn't own a necktie but is within two years of having a nuclear bomb comes to mind. You can already hear [[Harry Reid]] and [[Nancy Pelosi]] saying, "If the Democrats were in charge, the use of military force wouldn't be necessary because we'd constructively engage them and appease their stated desire to kill us."<REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy — as well as innocent civilians — must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it. Americans are weaker for having seen that kind of carnage in [[World War II]]. Recall that the Worst Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation. That tells you how awful war is. The Greatest Generation was so exhausted by the war, it didn't have the spine to stand up to [[pot-smoking]], draft-dodging hippies occupying administration buildings."<REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your [[Communists]] will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."<ref> ''Politically Incorrect'', Feb. 26, 2001</ref>

* "...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start."<ref>Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002</ref>

* On Sept. 13, 2001 she wrote this about the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|Sept. 11 terrorist attack]]: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."<ref>''National Review Online'', September 2001 [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml]</ref>

* "We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred."<ref>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/coulteriffic.php RWN's Ann Coulter Interview #2] John Hawkins.</ref>

* "Liberals are driven by [[Satan]] and lie constantly.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345 That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 06/28/2007.</ref>

* "Every concrete example of the racism allegedly sweeping the nation's campuses keeps turning out to be a fraud. Far from "institutional racism," there is "institutional racial hoaxism" run amok in this country."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email Another Liberal Noose-ance], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 10/17/2007.</ref>

* "Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23316 McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 11/07/2007.</ref>

* "By exposing the Democrats' absolute blindness to Soviet [[totalitarianism]], [[McCarthy]] shattered forever the nation's confidence in the Democrats' capacity to govern. For that, the [[Stalin]]ist [[liberal hate speech|hate machine]] attacked him viciously and has never let up."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824 They'll Never Forgive You], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 12/05/2007.</ref>

* "How about having [[Tim Russert]] ask Hillary if she believes the [[New Testament]] is the [[perfection]] of the [[Old Testament]]? She claims to be a [[Christian]]. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23174 How Long Before the A.D.L. Kicks Out All its Jews?], By Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', October 31, 2007.</ref>

* "[The New York Times'] reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha — just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at The New York Times.)"<ref>[http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter071306.php3 ''N.Y. Times: Better dead than read]]</ref>

* "I think our motto should be post-9-11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/12/ragheads-and-sambos-and-gooks/</ref>

* "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot."

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Ann Coulter|Articles about '''Ann Coulter''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Ann Coulter| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Ann Coulter]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Lou Dobbs]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi AnnCoulter.com]
*RealClearPolitcs.com [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/poll_most_americans_love_coult.html Poll: Most Americans Love Coulter Columns], accessed 6 May 2007.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html The Long Fuse on Ann Coulter's Bomb] - ''Washington Post'' - March 6, 2007
*[http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2095 Media Research Center 'Funny Video's from 2007'] Watch Ann Coulter present funny videos from 2007 at the 2008 MRC DisHonors Awards in DC.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Coulter, Ann}}

[[Category:Women Authors]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]

Ann Coulter

2010-03-06T14:44:23Z

Piexing: Honestly, the first sentence was a blatant insult.

[[Image:Coulter2006.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''.]]
'''Ann Hart Coulter''' (b. 1961) is a right-wing political commentator notable for her seven books, all of which defame liberals.

She is an [[attorney]], legal affairs correspondent, social commentator and a well known political pundit.
She has written five bestselling books on U.S. politics. U.S. Federal Judge [[Richard Posner]] called her one of America's top public intellectuals.<ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] "Data for tables in Chapter 5 of Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline" where Posner talks about the data he used for his book ''Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline''.</ref><ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] Table II, which is Posner's data for 607 public intellectuals. A PDF search of "Coulter" will show she is on Posner's list.</ref>

Coulter's primary focus is exposing the perceived faults of [[liberalism]], and she has enjoyed a popular following for her strong defense of family values against [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]].
She is well known for her forthright statements against those who wish to hurt the [[United States]].

Coulter is a high profile female [[conservative]], in line with [[Phyllis Schlafly]] and [[Condoleezza Rice]]. Her books and strong speaking style have endeared her to fans and infuriated opponents.

As a [[Christian]], Coulter adheres to the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition the view that [[human being]]s are utterly and distinctly apart from other species.

Being an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and her critics often feign being offended.<ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, [[hirsute]], somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)]</ref><ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'f*****.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html]</ref>

Coulter made headlines during the 2008 Presidential primaries by endorsing [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] for President instead of [[John McCain]]. Coulter asserted that McCain is not conservative, but [[liberal]].

==Views on the Democratic Party==

Coulter says that the [[Democratic Party]] has a "history of supporting [[slavery]], [[segregation]], racial preferences, [[George Wallace]] and [[Bull Connor]]." [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35188]

==Books==

Some of her books include
*''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]]'' (2002)
*''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]]'' (2003)
*''[[Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism]]'' (2004)
*''[[How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)]]'' (2005)
*''[[Godless: The Church of Liberalism]]'' (2007)
*''[[If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans]]'' (2007)
*''[[Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America]]'' (2009)

In ''Godless'', Coulter illustrates how liberals make a [[religion]] out of their beliefs, which they follow with the sort of intolerant zeal which they claim [[fundamentalist]]s do. "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul [and] that we are moral beings in God's image." (pg. 3)

==Quotes==

* "Whether they are defending the [[Soviet Union]] or bleating for [[Saddam Hussein]], liberals are always against [[United States of America|America]]. They are either traitors or idiots ... "<Ref>''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''</ref>
* "My only regret with [[Timothy McVeigh]] is he did not go to the [[New York Times]] Building." She later clarified "Of course I regret [saying] it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm 9/11 Commissioner Criticizes Coulter's 'Hate-Filled Attack'] Associated Press story in USA Today. "'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,' The New York Observer quoted her as saying on Aug. 20, 2002. She clarified those remarks with RightWingNews.com: 'Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."'"</ref><ref>Hawkins, [http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php An Interview With Ann Coulter], Right Wing News.</ref>

* "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say." (The view that Christians are perfected Jews is a common belief among Jewish converts to Christianity, who view Christianity as a natural continuation of Judaism.

* "Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture — those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to [[Darfur]], a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it... These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?...Darfur is not the threat... though a hostage-taking, [[Holocaust]]-denying lunatic who doesn't own a necktie but is within two years of having a nuclear bomb comes to mind. You can already hear [[Harry Reid]] and [[Nancy Pelosi]] saying, "If the Democrats were in charge, the use of military force wouldn't be necessary because we'd constructively engage them and appease their stated desire to kill us."<REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy — as well as innocent civilians — must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it. Americans are weaker for having seen that kind of carnage in [[World War II]]. Recall that the Worst Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation. That tells you how awful war is. The Greatest Generation was so exhausted by the war, it didn't have the spine to stand up to [[pot-smoking]], draft-dodging hippies occupying administration buildings."<REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your [[Communists]] will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."<ref> ''Politically Incorrect'', Feb. 26, 2001</ref>

* "...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start."<ref>Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002</ref>

* On Sept. 13, 2001 she wrote this about the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|Sept. 11 terrorist attack]]: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."<ref>''National Review Online'', September 2001 [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml]</ref>

* "We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred."<ref>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/coulteriffic.php RWN's Ann Coulter Interview #2] John Hawkins.</ref>

* "Liberals are driven by [[Satan]] and lie constantly.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345 That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 06/28/2007.</ref>

* "Every concrete example of the racism allegedly sweeping the nation's campuses keeps turning out to be a fraud. Far from "institutional racism," there is "institutional racial hoaxism" run amok in this country."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email Another Liberal Noose-ance], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 10/17/2007.</ref>

* "Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23316 McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 11/07/2007.</ref>

* "By exposing the Democrats' absolute blindness to Soviet [[totalitarianism]], [[McCarthy]] shattered forever the nation's confidence in the Democrats' capacity to govern. For that, the [[Stalin]]ist [[liberal hate speech|hate machine]] attacked him viciously and has never let up."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824 They'll Never Forgive You], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 12/05/2007.</ref>

* "How about having [[Tim Russert]] ask Hillary if she believes the [[New Testament]] is the [[perfection]] of the [[Old Testament]]? She claims to be a [[Christian]]. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23174 How Long Before the A.D.L. Kicks Out All its Jews?], By Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', October 31, 2007.</ref>

* "[The New York Times'] reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha — just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at The New York Times.)"<ref>[http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter071306.php3 ''N.Y. Times: Better dead than read]]</ref>

* "I think our motto should be post-9-11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/12/ragheads-and-sambos-and-gooks/</ref>

* "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot."

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Ann Coulter|Articles about '''Ann Coulter''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Ann Coulter| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Ann Coulter]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Lou Dobbs]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi AnnCoulter.com]
*RealClearPolitcs.com [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/poll_most_americans_love_coult.html Poll: Most Americans Love Coulter Columns], accessed 6 May 2007.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html The Long Fuse on Ann Coulter's Bomb] - ''Washington Post'' - March 6, 2007
*[http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2095 Media Research Center 'Funny Video's from 2007'] Watch Ann Coulter present funny videos from 2007 at the 2008 MRC DisHonors Awards in DC.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Coulter, Ann}}

[[Category:Women Authors]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]