Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Christians: reply)
(Reply)
Line 359: Line 359:
  
 
: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain.  Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 
: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain.  Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 06:50, 17 June 2008

Archives: 1 2


False Citation

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

No citation

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting Barack Obama.--Aschlafly 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

Why lead with the criticisms?

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? Yesaliberal 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. Yesaliberal 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of placement bias, where it leads with liberal fluff and buries or omits informative truth.--Aschlafly 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
LOL! Yesaliberal 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. Bugler 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. Yesaliberal 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Nomination timing

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--Aschlafly 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the DNC's website has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --Jareddr 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.
The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--Aschlafly 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --Jareddr 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Jareddr, conservatives don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--Aschlafly 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --Jareddr 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--Aschlafly 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? Wandering 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--Aschlafly 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Association with Black supremacists

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

Alfred

I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. Darkknight 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Switching the two pictures' placement

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--Irockarolex 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute photo bias according to previous attempts. --Jareddr 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--Irockarolex 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --Jareddr 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--Carterlansford 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

huh?

whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever! AdenJ 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. StatsMsn 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
Liberals do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--Aschlafly 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. Athuroglossos

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. Murray 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. StatsMsn 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. StatsMsn 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:


So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. StatsMsn 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Complaint

"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

This is simply amazing.

Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--Aschlafly 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many leftists hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--Aschlafly 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)


Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--Aschlafly 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]
You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--Aschlafly 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:
* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.
* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. SamSamson 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a citation needed[Citation Needed] to some [unreferenced opinions], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --SamSamson 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Why, yes. Yes they do.--Irockarolex 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Michelle Obama

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: Obama Family Christmas Card?

Curious about removal of "liberal bias"

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [1] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? Wandering 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? Pharaonic 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal bias, not one that censors facts that happen to be inconvenient to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. Pharaonic 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.AliceBG 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [2]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.
AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as liberals are fond of saying.--Aschlafly 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. Athuroglossos
Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say Obama that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for George W. Bush with such fervor also?--Aschlafly 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --Jareddr 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --JMarks 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. Hindublog 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Punishment image

Note to editors
If you remove the Image:Punishment.jpg from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the blocks for removing the image will be increased to 3 days. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --Jareddr 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
"Editors" not "Editor's" Dnotice 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.Godlover 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, Image:Punishment.jpg is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --Elkman 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. Fantasia 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. TBarret 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--jp 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. Bugler 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. Bugler 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--jp 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--jp 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I also removed the picture from the McCain article.

I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? HenryS 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.AliceBG 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Why don't you do it? HenryS 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.AliceBG 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? HenryS 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? AliceBG 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. HenryS 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. Karajou 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- Aaronp
Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. Karajou 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? HenryS 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.AliceBG 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. HenryS 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. Karajou 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Page does exist: [3]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. Karajou 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* HenryS 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. Bugler 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not AdenJ 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--jp 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -CSGuy 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Punishment.jpg

"but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation."

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. Wandering 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--Jareddr 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? TBarret 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--Aschlafly 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Guess who does wear a flag pin.....Mr. Bathroom Knocker himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --JMarks 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. TBarret 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

The Introduction

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. TBarret 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. TBarret 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.AliceBG 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --Jareddr 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Structure

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--jp 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The Senior Lecturer Reference

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --Jareddr 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

"Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam."

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.AliceBG 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

57 Islamic states...

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. AliceBG 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --Jareddr 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--Aschlafly 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --Jareddr 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --Jareddr 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

here is the full quote.
"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! Humblpi 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!
Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--Aschlafly 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Drug use

Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? TonyT 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Please provide a cite. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [4]. TonyT 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). Wandering 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. Bugler 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. Wandering 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. DannyRedful 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? TonyT 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it. Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. DannyRedful 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. TonyT 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. DannyRedful 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. TonyT 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? HenryS 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --DinsdaleP 16:21, 13 June 2
No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. TonyT 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Since you've decided...

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone, JMarks.

Political Views

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--jp 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? WillD

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--jp 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Christians

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? StatsMsn 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for abortion.--Aschlafly 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. StatsMsn 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)