Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

Revision as of 22:49, September 9, 2008

Archives: 1 2 3

No longer presumptive

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. Athuroglossos 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. Redstatepride 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Education In Jakarta, Indonesia

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--EmpressG1973 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --Patriot1505

Actually it was his school that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- rkstiner

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --Patriot1505

So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. MichaelR 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --Patriot1505

Reversion Explained

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--Aschlafly 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. Yesaliberal 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? TJason 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. Yesaliberal 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". TJason 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Affirmative Action President

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. TJason 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the only reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. Corry 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. Learn together 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. Corry 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. Learn together 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. Corry 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the only reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a major force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, I won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. TJason 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. Corry 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). TJason 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." Corry 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.TJason 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. Corry 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

"Alleged" birth revert

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? Corry 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. TJason 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. Corry 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. Bugler 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

We know many liberals love deceit, and the birth certificate posted by Obama's campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--Aschlafly 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. Corry 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? TJason 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? DefenderofTrue 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. Corry 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I like the changes you have made. TJason 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. Corry 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. TJason 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. Corry 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

We have a problem

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. Saksjn 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number

I copied this from the Main Page Talk section to here because you all might find it of interest. --AdmiralNelson 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Look at this photo, is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? Visitor 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is 151 1961 - 010641. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:

151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753

and then add the individual digits of the result thus:

1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18

the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or 666, sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --AdmiralNelson 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. Jirby 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone? Visitor 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm giving it a chance. Jirby 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. Visitor 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Can I quote myself? I just thought this was interesting. For "seriousness" I stand by my record. Feel free to check it out. --AdmiralNelson 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Lawsuit

The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? Visitor 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I think he does dispute it.--Aschlafly 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Dilution

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--Aschlafly 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --Jareddr 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Requested change

Original text:

Requested new text:

This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --Ampersand 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Another

This link should be commented out until this abysmal essay is fixed. Marge 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Pearl Harbor issue

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (bombs did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. OtherSide 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation don't know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. RobCross 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--Jareddr 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. RobCross 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --Jareddr 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. SamuelHTD 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --Jareddr 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--Aschlafly 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P SamuelHTD 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --Jareddr 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--Aschlafly 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. SamuelHTD 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--Aschlafly 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--Aschlafly 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.AliceBG 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it is rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?

An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.

Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but not in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an intro. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --DirkB 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Citation Needed

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this: Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this: After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

Tone of the article on Obama

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--Aschlafly 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Tone of the article on Obama

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--Aschlafly 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) Googly 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern...

1. (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

1. (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

1. (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?Jirby 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --Ampersand 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. Jirby 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --AndrasK 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--Aschlafly 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. Jirby 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Large repetitions!

The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. ClarkeD 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! ClarkeD 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line

Was just trying to fix my spelling error, not trying to revert Andy. --GunsandaBible.

"My Muslim Faith" quote

I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. Billgates3