Changes

:Many would say that the only way we can arrive at a true and complete picture of any politician is to take a look at their life before gaining elected office. Once running for office, or on that merry-go-round of always running for re-election, how is anyone to gain a glimpse of the real person?  Every bit of information, once elected (especially as President) is so managed, so structured, a true picture can never be painted.  With President-elect Obama, there are more unanswered questions than anyone I can think of elected President in modern times.  Life isn't fair, and no matter if Obama's supporters dislike the continued inquiry, they should blame Obama and his people, not those seeking answers.  If they had categorically answered answered, or permitted the release of his personal information, this all might have been put to rest. But they have continued to stone-wall. Isn't it odd, and indicative of [[liberal deceit]] that personal [[privacy]] is very important to liberals in their own personal lives, but they cherish that of the citizens much less! The reliance upon birth announcements in newspapers, and generic record of live birth, instead of releasing the actual, unaltered birth certificate to prove citizenship, differs from the records available on other modern presidents.  The fact that Barack Obama didn't ask the Department of State to make public the travel records of his mom and dad is also cause for concern. Unless and until all information is made available by Mr. Obama, the inquiries Andy speaks of will continue, as that is the responsible course for encyclopedias and scholars who always take the long view, rather than focus on the passions of the here and now.  This whole tempest is about those who don't want to hear or think about the possibilities, people willing to sell the truth short because of their political or world view bias. Scholars, and scholarly encyclopedias ask questions, and don't state as factual anything that lacks full disclosure, like Obama's religious instruction and training, his place of true birth, and his questionable associations. Conservatives fight for the truth, [[liberals]] seek to obsfucate and dismiss intellectual curiosity, always demanding "facts" that cannot be readily produced because the subject of the questions refuses to own up. Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it.  --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font>} 23:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Many would say that the only way we can arrive at a true and complete picture of any politician is to take a look at their life before gaining elected office. Once running for office, or on that merry-go-round of always running for re-election, how is anyone to gain a glimpse of the real person?  Every bit of information, once elected (especially as President) is so managed, so structured, a true picture can never be painted.  With President-elect Obama, there are more unanswered questions than anyone I can think of elected President in modern times.  Life isn't fair, and no matter if Obama's supporters dislike the continued inquiry, they should blame Obama and his people, not those seeking answers.  If they had categorically answered answered, or permitted the release of his personal information, this all might have been put to rest. But they have continued to stone-wall. Isn't it odd, and indicative of [[liberal deceit]] that personal [[privacy]] is very important to liberals in their own personal lives, but they cherish that of the citizens much less! The reliance upon birth announcements in newspapers, and generic record of live birth, instead of releasing the actual, unaltered birth certificate to prove citizenship, differs from the records available on other modern presidents.  The fact that Barack Obama didn't ask the Department of State to make public the travel records of his mom and dad is also cause for concern. Unless and until all information is made available by Mr. Obama, the inquiries Andy speaks of will continue, as that is the responsible course for encyclopedias and scholars who always take the long view, rather than focus on the passions of the here and now.  This whole tempest is about those who don't want to hear or think about the possibilities, people willing to sell the truth short because of their political or world view bias. Scholars, and scholarly encyclopedias ask questions, and don't state as factual anything that lacks full disclosure, like Obama's religious instruction and training, his place of true birth, and his questionable associations. Conservatives fight for the truth, [[liberals]] seek to obsfucate and dismiss intellectual curiosity, always demanding "facts" that cannot be readily produced because the subject of the questions refuses to own up. Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it.  --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font>} 23:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true.  "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this.  "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels).  I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you.  Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all.  It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support.  If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place.  I ''believe'' Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated.  But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion,  it is too weak and strident.  There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true.  "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this.  "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels).  I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you.  Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all.  It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support.  If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place.  I ''believe'' Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated.  But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion,  it is too weak and strident.  There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven.  Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself.  I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness.  It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth.  There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously.  This does not help the cause in the least.

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven.  Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself.  I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness.  It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth.  There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously.  This does not help the cause in the least.