Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-21T15:04:34Z

JamalG: /* Stephen Fry */

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.{{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].
:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:John Edwards

2008-08-20T19:44:11Z

JamalG: /* Future */

I don't know how notable opposing the surge is, since every Democratic candidate I'm aware of opposes it. It would be more notable if he *weren't* opposed to the troop surge. :) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 13:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think most were at the beginning though, and considering it is still a very hot and immediate topic, I think it's relevent. TheisonMarsh

Actually, now that I think about it, the fighting global warming is probably in the same nature. The most significant thing about his campaign is the "Two Americas" theme, and fighting poverty. At least, from what I get of him. Still, I wouldn't oppose including it again, since I think he's the one who has pressured Hillary the most to apologize for her vote. And I think he has apologized for his vote, too. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 21:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well thank you for reconsidering, and I appreciate finding a sane person to debate something with on here. That is actually why I think it should be included (what you said about him apologizing for his vote), that, and what I said earlier about it still being a hotly debated topic. Furthermore, I wish there was more info here on his topics besides same-sex marriage. Those sentences are longer than the ones about any other topic and I feel that is disproportionate to its importance as a topic.
TheisonMarsh

I only meant to remove the image and not the "Further reading," but a search inside on amazon.com did not reveal any mention of John Edwards in the book. Rather than just throw a link up, maybe explain what its significance is?

== Political Views ==

Can we cite articles proving that malpractice suits by trial lawyers is the reason that the Health Care System is in as bad shape as it is, please? [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 17:13, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Changed to match the style. Feel free to add/edit. Need to source some of the statements, too. Oh, and link other to articles, like John Kerry. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Have to agree with PF Fox ==

RobS, sorry to disagree with you, and I am normally a Coulter fan, but I believe that she has crossed the line in calling Edwards gay and making remarks about his dead son. His son died in service to our country; in an extremely unpopular war, he stood up and made the sacrifice. That should be honored by giving his father some peace. Also, his wife's dying... I cannot imagine how much that hurts. Like I said, I'm a Coulter fan, but enough is enough here. What she did is truly un-Christian.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:52, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Cites have been added with transcript of the exchange. and no, Coulter did not say she like to see Edwards killed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:57, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Citation is used to stand for facts; not opinions. The value-word "attacked" is not supported in the cites. I honestly don't think we should cover this issue at all if it's that divisive. I don't want to break with you, but seriously, what she did was wrong. We should either handle it neutrally - "E. Edwards called in to express concern," with value-neutral adjectives & adverbs - or not cover it at all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:58, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Well, I'm not an Edwards fan, and in this episode what Coulter had said just was not said first. If Edwards had said something that despicable about Cheney, if he had looked the other way or agreed with what Bill Maher said about Cheney, then this article is not going to look as though Coulter and only Coulter was the bad girl here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:59, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, I see that concern. Therefore, I address it by making a neutral fact-statement. Is my solution acceptable? Notice it passes judgment on no-one.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:00, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:To me, the exact quotation by Coulter would have been fine; it is what she said, and obviously Mrs. Edwards did not like it. But the fact remains that Coulter repeated what Bill Maher said on GMA, and the attack on her subsequent to that is what caused it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:02, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
So is the edited version by me - my attempt at mediation - better? Feel free to edit it by inserting the exact quote. However, I like my language because it ignores emotions.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:it's OK. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Great. I try, sometimes, haha. Goodnight all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:07, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the offensive quotes by Coulter that prompted the phone call? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:If the quotes are to be put in, the entire exchange has to be there, and that includes exactly what transpired on GMA that led to the quote. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:24, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

In case anyone is wondering, this is the exact quote by Ann Coulter, and by looking at the history of the article, anyone can see that part of this quote was taken out and used as if she issued a direct threat against Edwards:
:''"Oh, yeah, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Socialist policies? ==
As a socialist myself, I really wouldn't consider John Edwards to advocate socialist policies. The only one I can think of is health care, aside from that he's a mixed economy sort of chap. --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 17:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*''we want a tax code that rewards everyone’s work to build everyone’s wealth''--John Edwards
*''everybody has a responsibility to help everyone else get ahead''-- John Edwards [http://www.saccenti.com/johnnybopper/why.htm]
*''from each as he is able, to each according to his needs''-- Karl Marx
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:11, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, RobS. You're claiming that, because some of his statements sound somewhat like Karl Marx's, he advocates the same policies he does. That doesn't follow, does it? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 14:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::You cited the expenditure side of the ledger, I cited the revenue side. The link I provided has much more than what was quoted, for example,
:::''There is nothing new about the shouts of [[class warfare]]. And there is nothing new about saying that some leaders are giving big tax cuts to their wealthy friends on Wall Street. They said it all a hundred years ago. ''
::The whole speech is the politics of [[envy]], pitting "rich" against poor. And we have this double speak:
:::''Everyone who works should have a chance to build up their wealth—the wealth to offer their family security in time of trouble, the '''wealth to pass on a better future to their children.'''''
::and then condemns the GOP with
:::'' they are trying to make the elimination of the estate tax permanent. ''
::So which is it? Are workers entitled to pass on their accumulated wealth to their children or not?

:::''Our tax code should honor every kind of work—the work of a doctor, a mill worker, a janitor. ''
::What about the work of the investor, without which nobody works at all? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Served one term==
"Edwards served in the Senate for one year," it says in the section "Political Career." You mean one ''term''. [[User:Chartero|Chartero]] 20:38, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks for detecting that error! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==The National Enquirer==
The National Enquirer has published a John Edwards/Rielle Hunter love affair and love child. Even though the National Enquirer is a tabloid, should relevent investigations prove true, this will make his page.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the heads up, Jimmy Olsen! In related news, Weekly World News reports it has pictures of Bat Boy! If investigations show these pictures are real, we'll add it to [[Bat Boy]]'s page. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Snake Oil Salesman ==

Ummm...I deleted it because it's pretty self-evident that it's NOT appropriate for an encyclopedia AND it makes no sense. "Considering all that has happened and Elizabeth with cancer, snake oil salesman?" What does that mean? What does "considering all that happened" and "Elizabeth having cancer" have to do with "snake oil salesman?" --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:13, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: The term seems descriptive to me, and informative. I caution against deleting informative material simply because you don't like it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:: If you want to call him a snake oil salesman, then do so. But the phrase itself, "Considering all that happened and Elizabeth with cancer, snake oil salesman?" grammatically MAKES NO SENSE. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:19, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Attacks on Ann Coulter is Worth a Sub-Section? LOL! ==

Are you kidding? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:48, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Make that the biggest sub-section! Bigger than his cheating, bigger than his run for president, bigger than his political career! Wow! You guys slay me! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:50, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

==Future==
This passage makes no sense: <blockquote>The general feeling is that this scandal has put a serious career ending dent into Edwards' political prospects. Considering all that has transpired plus Elizabeth has terminal cancer, John Edwards only has a future being a snake oil salesman. It has removed him from Vice President consideration, hampered all hopes for Presidential convention speeches and of his becoming Attorney General, should a Democrat win in November.</blockquote>
Who has this general feelings. From reading most editorials and watching pundits, the consensus seems to be he will lie low for the election season and then come back and try to repair his image. Aside from the fact that saying things like:John Edwards only has a future being a snake oil salesman is petty and childish (not to mention grammatically awful) Politicians and sex scandals go together like.... politicians and sex scandals. There have been many Republican SS and just as many Democratic SS and few politicians simply drop off the face of the planet once they go public. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 15:24, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
:Watch out Jamal Greene, your statement will be ignored, and you will be criticized for the spelling of "scandel." Let the ad hominem attacks begin! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
::Are you making ad hom attacks on CP sysops? Sarcastic idiocies are not the way to build an encyclopaedia. Wise up. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:40, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I don't if that was addressed to me or to the last poster, but I most certainly did not make any ad hom attacks against anybody [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 15:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:John Edwards

2008-08-20T19:43:54Z

JamalG: /* Future */ reply and fix stupid spelling mistake

Talk:John Edwards

2008-08-20T19:24:55Z

JamalG:

I don't know how notable opposing the surge is, since every Democratic candidate I'm aware of opposes it. It would be more notable if he *weren't* opposed to the troop surge. :) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 13:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think most were at the beginning though, and considering it is still a very hot and immediate topic, I think it's relevent. TheisonMarsh

Actually, now that I think about it, the fighting global warming is probably in the same nature. The most significant thing about his campaign is the "Two Americas" theme, and fighting poverty. At least, from what I get of him. Still, I wouldn't oppose including it again, since I think he's the one who has pressured Hillary the most to apologize for her vote. And I think he has apologized for his vote, too. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 21:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well thank you for reconsidering, and I appreciate finding a sane person to debate something with on here. That is actually why I think it should be included (what you said about him apologizing for his vote), that, and what I said earlier about it still being a hotly debated topic. Furthermore, I wish there was more info here on his topics besides same-sex marriage. Those sentences are longer than the ones about any other topic and I feel that is disproportionate to its importance as a topic.
TheisonMarsh

I only meant to remove the image and not the "Further reading," but a search inside on amazon.com did not reveal any mention of John Edwards in the book. Rather than just throw a link up, maybe explain what its significance is?

== Political Views ==

Can we cite articles proving that malpractice suits by trial lawyers is the reason that the Health Care System is in as bad shape as it is, please? [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 17:13, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Changed to match the style. Feel free to add/edit. Need to source some of the statements, too. Oh, and link other to articles, like John Kerry. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Have to agree with PF Fox ==

RobS, sorry to disagree with you, and I am normally a Coulter fan, but I believe that she has crossed the line in calling Edwards gay and making remarks about his dead son. His son died in service to our country; in an extremely unpopular war, he stood up and made the sacrifice. That should be honored by giving his father some peace. Also, his wife's dying... I cannot imagine how much that hurts. Like I said, I'm a Coulter fan, but enough is enough here. What she did is truly un-Christian.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:52, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Cites have been added with transcript of the exchange. and no, Coulter did not say she like to see Edwards killed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:57, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Citation is used to stand for facts; not opinions. The value-word "attacked" is not supported in the cites. I honestly don't think we should cover this issue at all if it's that divisive. I don't want to break with you, but seriously, what she did was wrong. We should either handle it neutrally - "E. Edwards called in to express concern," with value-neutral adjectives & adverbs - or not cover it at all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:58, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Well, I'm not an Edwards fan, and in this episode what Coulter had said just was not said first. If Edwards had said something that despicable about Cheney, if he had looked the other way or agreed with what Bill Maher said about Cheney, then this article is not going to look as though Coulter and only Coulter was the bad girl here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:59, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, I see that concern. Therefore, I address it by making a neutral fact-statement. Is my solution acceptable? Notice it passes judgment on no-one.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:00, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:To me, the exact quotation by Coulter would have been fine; it is what she said, and obviously Mrs. Edwards did not like it. But the fact remains that Coulter repeated what Bill Maher said on GMA, and the attack on her subsequent to that is what caused it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:02, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
So is the edited version by me - my attempt at mediation - better? Feel free to edit it by inserting the exact quote. However, I like my language because it ignores emotions.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:it's OK. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Great. I try, sometimes, haha. Goodnight all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:07, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the offensive quotes by Coulter that prompted the phone call? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:If the quotes are to be put in, the entire exchange has to be there, and that includes exactly what transpired on GMA that led to the quote. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:24, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

In case anyone is wondering, this is the exact quote by Ann Coulter, and by looking at the history of the article, anyone can see that part of this quote was taken out and used as if she issued a direct threat against Edwards:
:''"Oh, yeah, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Socialist policies? ==
As a socialist myself, I really wouldn't consider John Edwards to advocate socialist policies. The only one I can think of is health care, aside from that he's a mixed economy sort of chap. --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 17:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*''we want a tax code that rewards everyone’s work to build everyone’s wealth''--John Edwards
*''everybody has a responsibility to help everyone else get ahead''-- John Edwards [http://www.saccenti.com/johnnybopper/why.htm]
*''from each as he is able, to each according to his needs''-- Karl Marx
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:11, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, RobS. You're claiming that, because some of his statements sound somewhat like Karl Marx's, he advocates the same policies he does. That doesn't follow, does it? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 14:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::You cited the expenditure side of the ledger, I cited the revenue side. The link I provided has much more than what was quoted, for example,
:::''There is nothing new about the shouts of [[class warfare]]. And there is nothing new about saying that some leaders are giving big tax cuts to their wealthy friends on Wall Street. They said it all a hundred years ago. ''
::The whole speech is the politics of [[envy]], pitting "rich" against poor. And we have this double speak:
:::''Everyone who works should have a chance to build up their wealth—the wealth to offer their family security in time of trouble, the '''wealth to pass on a better future to their children.'''''
::and then condemns the GOP with
:::'' they are trying to make the elimination of the estate tax permanent. ''
::So which is it? Are workers entitled to pass on their accumulated wealth to their children or not?

:::''Our tax code should honor every kind of work—the work of a doctor, a mill worker, a janitor. ''
::What about the work of the investor, without which nobody works at all? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Served one term==
"Edwards served in the Senate for one year," it says in the section "Political Career." You mean one ''term''. [[User:Chartero|Chartero]] 20:38, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks for detecting that error! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==The National Enquirer==
The National Enquirer has published a John Edwards/Rielle Hunter love affair and love child. Even though the National Enquirer is a tabloid, should relevent investigations prove true, this will make his page.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the heads up, Jimmy Olsen! In related news, Weekly World News reports it has pictures of Bat Boy! If investigations show these pictures are real, we'll add it to [[Bat Boy]]'s page. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Snake Oil Salesman ==

Ummm...I deleted it because it's pretty self-evident that it's NOT appropriate for an encyclopedia AND it makes no sense. "Considering all that has happened and Elizabeth with cancer, snake oil salesman?" What does that mean? What does "considering all that happened" and "Elizabeth having cancer" have to do with "snake oil salesman?" --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:13, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: The term seems descriptive to me, and informative. I caution against deleting informative material simply because you don't like it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:: If you want to call him a snake oil salesman, then do so. But the phrase itself, "Considering all that happened and Elizabeth with cancer, snake oil salesman?" grammatically MAKES NO SENSE. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:19, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Attacks on Ann Coulter is Worth a Sub-Section? LOL! ==

Are you kidding? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:48, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Make that the biggest sub-section! Bigger than his cheating, bigger than his run for president, bigger than his political career! Wow! You guys slay me! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:50, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

==Future==
This passage makes no sense: <blockquote>The general feeling is that this scandal has put a serious career ending dent into Edwards' political prospects. Considering all that has transpired plus Elizabeth has terminal cancer, John Edwards only has a future being a snake oil salesman. It has removed him from Vice President consideration, hampered all hopes for Presidential convention speeches and of his becoming Attorney General, should a Democrat win in November.</blockquote>
Who has this general feelings. From reading most editorials and watching pundits, the consensus seems to be he will lie low for the election season and then come back and try to repair his image. Aside from the fact that saying things like:John Edwards only has a future being a snake oil salesman is petty and childish (not to mention grammatically awful) Politicians and sex scandels go together like.... politicians and sex scandels. There have been many Republican SS and just as many Democratic SS and few politicians simply drop off the face of the planet once they go public. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 15:24, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:African Americans

2008-08-20T19:10:44Z

JamalG:

On the [[Main Page]] is says "You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".

Surely "African American" is an example of "political correctness". Oughtn't this article be called Negroes?
[[User:JC|JC]] 08:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sure if you want to use a loaded term. Negroes is a term many associate with racism and apartheid. Careful that the conservatism doesn't turn into outright bigotry.
:-Gasmonkey

::So some "political correctness" is OK then? Fair enough, after all, we should love all [[God]]'s children. Even those from the other side of town.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

heh wow. Just love that Christian brotherhood, snide remarks about the other side of town and all. Don't worry, Jesus still loves you.

:::The term ''African-American'' is described as an example of [[Political correctness]] in that very article.
:::"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;" (Genesis 15:13)
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 07:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== some political correctnes is important ==

There has to be some political correctness.
Imagine if others would just start to tell about conservapedians "Idiots".
Or what do you think about calling creationistst "Ignorants"?
That would not be political correct, I think. But would it be wronger as you would be when calling african americans "Negroes"?
So better you think about, what you are saying before others call you racists, fundamentalists,.... --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To many blacks, the term 'negro' is at best archaic and condescending, and at worst, a derivative of 'nigger'. We can argue semantics all day, but lets not insult people in an effort not to be politically correct. And 'the other side of town'? Not where I live. [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 15:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:The reference to [[political correctness]] on the [[Main Page]] seems to have been removed. Perhaps political correctness is acceptable here after all. Though it doesn't yet seem to extend as far as [[homosexuality]].
::"He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light." (Job 33:28)
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It was removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&diff=48204&oldid=48150 here] on 19th March 2007
:::"He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed." (Leviticus 27:33)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Give me a break==

There's a difference between being politically incorrect and being uncouth. Calling them Negroes is just uncouth. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Proof==

My addition to this article ("Black people originated as descendants of Cain, along with Asians, Arabs, American Indians, Polynesians and other non-white races") has been proved by Creation Science. Creation Geneticists have found the gene EVL6 in all the races I listed, and EVL6 is traceable back to Cain.

:Uh huh, right. I'd love to see how they managed to trace it back to Cain, assuming you're not just making this all up yourself. Your source would be what?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, he's just making it up. And if he doesn't watch his step, he'll be blocked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Whom did Cain marry?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 18:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:Awan. Probably. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

== This Article Phails.... What to add first? ==

A far more extensive history...
List of awesome contributors...
Modern history, culture, issues...
Statistics...

Man... This article seriously phails. >_<
(Decides to add at random)

And by the way, saying that a contemporary ethnic name is PC is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. I say, what gives one the right to name another ethnicy anyway? (Negros, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos...) Perhaps it would be better (4 ONCE in history) to not push one's opinion on matters that don't concern one, hmm? Let ethnicies name themselves, thank you.
 
[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

==Picture==
I know pictures are nice to have in Encyclopedia articles (especially Wiki type) but does anyone really need a picture to know what an African American looks like? and why is that picture David Patterson by the way? [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 15:10, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

User:JamalG

2008-08-19T18:53:36Z

JamalG: New page: I will get to this someday

I will get to this someday

Colorado

2008-08-19T18:53:02Z

JamalG: added state symbol list

{{USState
|name=Colorado
|flag=Colorado_State_Flag.gif
|motto="Nil Sine Numine" (Nothing Without the Deity)
|nick=The Centennial State
|capital=Denver
|language=English
|governor=Bill Ritter
|gparty=Democrat
|senator1=Wayne Allard
|s1party=Republican
|senator2=Ken Salazar
|s2party=Democrat
|population=
|date=August 1, 1876 (38th)
}}
[[Image:colorado.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Colorado]]
'''Colorado''' is a state in the [[United States]]. It is mountainous and beautiful. It is known for its [[skiing]] and [[snowboarding]] resorts, such as [[Vail]] and [[Aspen]]. The [[Rocky Mountains]] run through Colorado, which is home to [[Rocky Mountain National Park]]. The winters are inclined to be very cold and produce many snowstorms.

The [[United States Air Force Academy]] is located in [[Colorado Springs]], Colorado.

==Elevation==

A number of Colorado cities are located near the Front Range of the Rockies, at elevations of around 5,000 feet. [[Denver]], its capital and largest city, is sometimes called "The Mile-High City, because the official elevation of Denver City Hall is exactly 5,280 feet.

[[Mount Elbert]] is the highest point in Colorado, at an elevation of 14,440 feet. It is one of over 500 mountains in the state that exceed 13,000 feet. The entire state lies at an elevation over 3,000 feet.

At elevations of 5,000 feet, the air is thinner and air pressure is lower than at sea level. It is not unusual for visitors to feel lightheaded for a day or two until they adjust (but actual altitude sickness is very rare). At this altitude, skies are a clearer, brighter blue than at sea level.

== History ==

The [[Native American]] (Indian) groups indigenous to Colorado were the [[Anasazi]] and [[Utes]] who lived in the mountainous regions, and several tribes who lived in the flatlands and near the rivers at various times including the [[Cheyenne]], [[Arapaho]], [[Kiowa]], [[Comanche]], [[Pawnee]] and [[Sioux]]. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/histfaqs.htm </ref>

It is believed that in 1541 the Spanish explorer Francisco Vázquez de Coronado was the first European on record to have entered the land that is now Colorado. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref> The Spanish called the area Colorado because of its red colored earth. The name is also sometimes credited to a Jesuit, Francisco Garcia, who in 1776 named the land after the Colorado River. <ref>Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (Oxford 2005) p 116</ref>

The United States acquired land including part of what is now Colorado in 1803 through the [[Louisiana Purchase]]. In 1848 through the [[Treaty of Hidalgo]], [[Mexico]] ceded to the United States more land that is now part of Colorado, and the Federal Government purchased the remainder of it in 1850. Before gaining statehood, Colorado was part of the [[Nebraska]], [[Utah]], [[Kansas]], and [[New Mexico]] Territories, and in 1861 [[Congress]] created the Territory of Colorado. The state now encompasses 104,247 square miles.

The state is bordered by [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Utah]]. Denver is the State capital and the largest city. The population of Colorado is approximately 4,750,000.

Colorado was the 38th state to join the Union on August 1, 1876, when President [[Ulysses S. Grant]] issued a [[proclamation]] of statehood. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref>

==Official Symbols==

Colorado has many official state symbols including:
*State Bird: Lark Bunting<ref>[http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/symbemb.htm Colorado Department of Personnel and Adminstration Website</ref>
*State Flower: Rocky Mountain Columbine
*State Animal: Big Horn Sheep
*State Fish: Greenback Cutthroat Trout
*State Tree: Colorado Blue Spruce
*State Folk Dance: Square Dance
*State Fossil: Stegosaurus
*State Gemstone: Aquamarine
*State Insect: Colorado Hairstreak Butterfly
*State Song: "Where the Columbines Grow" and "Rocky Mountain High"

==Notable Coloradoans==

*[[James Dobson,]] Christian psychologist and writer. Current head of the group [[Focus on the Family.]]

*[[John Elway,]] former [[quarterback]] for the [[Denver Broncos.]]

*[[Horace Greeley,]] newspaper editor and major player in US expansion during the 19th century.

*[[John Kerry,]] US senator and [[Democratic]] nominee for President in 2004.

*[[Tom Tancredo,]] [[US Representative.]]

==Statewide officials==
*Governor [[Bill Ritter]] (D)
*Senator [[Wayne Allard]] (R)
*Senator [[Ken Salazar]] (D)
==References==

<references/>

{{USstates}}

Larry Elder

2008-08-18T00:01:50Z

JamalG: a small stub to remove red links

Laurence Allen "Larry" Elder is an African American conservative/libertarian commentator. He is also a radio and talk show host and a syndicated columnist.

Pi Day

2008-08-11T01:25:51Z

JamalG:

'''Pi day''' is a [[holiday | "Holiday"]] celebrating [[mathematics]].

Pi Day is a tongue-in-cheek holiday celebrating the mathematical constant [[Pi]] and is observed on March 14. Celebrations often involve eating pie, cookies or some other spherical delicacy. The date comes from the first three digits of pi (3/14) with some people beginning their celebration at 1:59:26 (the following digits 3.1415926). Many Elementary and Middle School teachers use March 14 to introduce their students to the concept of Pi.

Pi Approximation day is a similar holiday, celebrated on July 22 (from the approximation 22/7 which comes close to the value for pi - the European dating method is used in this case).

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Colorado

2008-08-11T01:21:12Z

JamalG:

{{USState
|name=Colorado
|flag=Colorado_State_Flag.gif
|motto="Nil Sine Numine" (Nothing Without the Deity)
|nick=The Centennial State
|capital=Denver
|language=English
|governor=Bill Ritter
|gparty=Democrat
|senator1=Wayne Allard
|s1party=Republican
|senator2=Ken Salazar
|s2party=Democrat
|population=
|date=August 1, 1876 (38th)
}}
[[Image:colorado.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Colorado]]
'''Colorado''' is a state in the [[United States]]. It is mountainous and beautiful. It is known for its [[skiing]] and [[snowboarding]] resorts, such as [[Vail]] and [[Aspen]]. The [[Rocky Mountains]] run through Colorado, which is home to [[Rocky Mountain National Park]]. The winters are inclined to be very cold and produce many snowstorms.

The [[United States Air Force Academy]] is located in [[Colorado Springs]], Colorado.

==Elevation==

A number of Colorado cities are located near the Front Range of the Rockies, at elevations of around 5,000 feet. [[Denver]], its capital and largest city, is sometimes called "The Mile-High City, because the official elevation of Denver City Hall is exactly 5,280 feet.

[[Mount Elbert]] is the highest point in Colorado, at an elevation of 14,440 feet. It is one of over 500 mountains in the state that exceed 13,000 feet. The entire state lies at an elevation over 3,000 feet.

At elevations of 5,000 feet, the air is thinner and air pressure is lower than at sea level. It is not unusual for visitors to feel lightheaded for a day or two until they adjust (but actual altitude sickness is very rare). At this altitude, skies are a clearer, brighter blue than at sea level.

== History ==

The [[Native American]] (Indian) groups indigenous to Colorado were the [[Anasazi]] and [[Utes]] who lived in the mountainous regions, and several tribes who lived in the flatlands and near the rivers at various times including the [[Cheyenne]], [[Arapaho]], [[Kiowa]], [[Comanche]], [[Pawnee]] and [[Sioux]]. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/histfaqs.htm </ref>

It is believed that in 1541 the Spanish explorer Francisco Vázquez de Coronado was the first European on record to have entered the land that is now Colorado. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref> The Spanish called the area Colorado because of its red colored earth. The name is also sometimes credited to a Jesuit, Francisco Garcia, who in 1776 named the land after the Colorado River. <ref>Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (Oxford 2005) p 116</ref>

The United States acquired land including part of what is now Colorado in 1803 through the [[Louisiana Purchase]]. In 1848 through the [[Treaty of Hidalgo]], [[Mexico]] ceded to the United States more land that is now part of Colorado, and the Federal Government purchased the remainder of it in 1850. Before gaining statehood, Colorado was part of the [[Nebraska]], [[Utah]], [[Kansas]], and [[New Mexico]] Territories, and in 1861 [[Congress]] created the Territory of Colorado. The state now encompasses 104,247 square miles.

The state is bordered by [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Utah]]. Denver is the State capital and the largest city. The population of Colorado is approximately 4,750,000.

Colorado was the 38th state to join the Union on August 1, 1876, when President [[Ulysses S. Grant]] issued a [[proclamation]] of statehood. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref>
==Notable Coloradoans==

*[[James Dobson,]] Christian psychologist and writer. Current head of the group [[Focus on the Family.]]

*[[John Elway,]] former [[quarterback]] for the [[Denver Broncos.]]

*[[Horace Greeley,]] newspaper editor and major player in US expansion during the 19th century.

*[[John Kerry,]] US senator and [[Democratic]] nominee for President in 2004.

*[[Tom Tancredo,]] [[US Representative.]]

==Statewide officials==
*Governor [[Bill Ritter]] (D)
*Senator [[Wayne Allard]] (R)
*Senator [[Ken Salazar]] (D)
==References==

<references/>

{{USstates}}

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-11T00:23:29Z

JamalG: