Talk:Bobby Jindal

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Name concerns

In the interest of pre-empting any kind of finger-pointing over consistency issues, I believe it is absolutely necessary to include information about WHY he hasn't legally changed his name. There are all kinds of statements in the Barack Obama article which try to illustrate some percieved Muslim agenda because he hasn't changed his Afro-arabic name to something more...Anglo-Saxon. Now, before you try to tell me that he is known as "Bobby": Aren't there plenty enough examples of Obama going by "Barry" for his high-school and some portion of his college days? I mean, come on. To say that Jindal gets a check-mark off the "'weird' religion's Manchurian candidate watchlist" but Obama doesn't is patently unfair, and not in line with being trustworthy or encyclopedic. Either changes must be made to this article, or to Obama's article. Thank you. OtherSide 10:19, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama has not been known as "Barry" for at least 20 years, and perhaps never.--Aschlafly 11:42, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
[1] Here's an image from his yearbook. Regardless, even if you believe this image is doctored, liberal propaganda, or a product of the Minitrue, why the double standard? Why is it okay for one man not to legally change his name (which is the precise accusation leveled against Obama on his article), while another gets blasted for it? While the job Obama's seeking surely requires much more serious scrutiny of the candidates running, why is it that a man must be condemned because his name sounds kinda' sorta' reminiscent of something familiar to people we're engaged in conflicts with? Is it only Muslim names that ensure the candidate is a sleeper agent of terrorists? I do not seek any kind of politically-motivated changes to these articles, only consistency-promoting ones. If we're going to do this to Obama and not others, then why not do it to Asian senators? Following the logic employed here, shouldn't they have known to change their names after Pearl Harbor, or the Boxer Rebellions? Why doesn't this site embrace the individualism of a man who didn't hide behind a safe, sunshiny name like "John Smith" merely to get elected? Shouldn't that be rewarded in America? I know you're a reasonable man, and I know you'll give me a reasonable answer. Thank you.OtherSide 18:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Wow. I guess that fortune cookie of easily-disproven garbage is all I get from a coward. Great. OtherSide 01:14, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

We may want to add some other links regarding the reasons Jindal wants to reject the stimulus money to provide balance and fairness. He has stated that the labor department projected additional costs after the stimulus money ended, but that would need to be based on what the unemployment picture would be at the time. If the stimulus worked and people got back to work in Louisiana, then they might have to pay LESS for unemployment insurance. --Kschroe 14:32, 27 February 2009 (EST)