120
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,385:
Line 1,385: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Barack Hussein Obama (view source)
Revision as of 00:08, December 2, 2008
, 00:08, December 2, 2008→Insights section: new section
::: So you are saying that if a person has not yet contributed to an article, their opinions should be dismissed as pointless? We should welcome new users, or else this project can never grow. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 18:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::: So you are saying that if a person has not yet contributed to an article, their opinions should be dismissed as pointless? We should welcome new users, or else this project can never grow. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 18:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)
== Insights section ==
While I appreciate some of the points made in this section, particularly the one about President-elect Obama and his campaign's proud participation in homosexual pride events, I fail to see why certain gaffes are mentioned. The '57 states' and forgetting to pluralize "bomb" in his line about Pearl Harbor -- what value does mentioning these minor gaffes bring to an encyclopedia article?
And if these oral lapses are in fact deemed worthy of mentioning, why aren't any of Senator McCain's gaffes included in his article? (The bombing song was in poor taste and various other instances of misspeaking were on par with Obama's state miscount) It was also surprising to note that Governor Palin's far more telling gaffes, especially in the Katie Couric interview, were not to be found on her page. It seems like of all the candidates, her rhetoric was most questionable of all.
Anyway, I do understand that ''is'' Conservapedia and as such, Republican ideals are presented more favorably. However, I really think that some consistency when describing the '08 candidates would serve this site well.
(I won't mention the OBAMA = MUSLIM slant because it's been beat to death)
Cheers. SJames