nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 144:
Line 144: + + + +
→Reasons opponents give for their objections
:There's no reason we can't include talk about the Clinton violations as well as these. Right or wrong, objections to the Patriot Act have been very controversial and well noted in the news, and we can't simply ignore controversy simply for the sake of political expediency if we are to be an informative encyclopedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:37, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:There's no reason we can't include talk about the Clinton violations as well as these. Right or wrong, objections to the Patriot Act have been very controversial and well noted in the news, and we can't simply ignore controversy simply for the sake of political expediency if we are to be an informative encyclopedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:37, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Agree with Dan.
::A “conservative” encyclopedia needs to provide “equal time”? In presenting its Christian/Friendly-Conservative/Friendly message to the world, are we perhaps being trapped into going overboard in stating opposition to things like the Patriot Act, and all the rest? Seems to me we allot more than sufficient time and space, than morally required to do so, to what “others think”. It occurs to me we are being manipulated, under the guise of some intellectual standard, defined by liberals, to including refutations on every point, to what we think, rather than just summarizing opposition (liberal) thoughts. Just my opinion, and I of course could be wrong. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)