1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 542:
Line 542: + + + +
→belifes vs. facts: new section
On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
== belifes vs. facts ==
In regards to this article I wanted to say that first off there is NO connection between being a conservative and being Christian. One can hold a political conservative view such as: it is morally wrong to have an abortion, without being a Christian. Secondly, When you have an belief about a person it is considered slander(which is against the law) unless you provide warrants to your claims. Stretched arguments such as 'Obama doesn't go to church so there for he is a radical Muslim terrorist' is a fallacy, and totally unwarranted. If one is to publicly state their opinion then you might want to provide more evidence and less fallacies. Slippy-Slop fallacies are not going to increase knowledge and understanding. If that is what you want, for more people to know the arguments that you feel are true then you should give compelling evidence as to why such arguments are possible. I also would like to point out that just because you don't agree with what I'm saying don't tell me that I'm trying to throw liberal garbage around. Prove to me that my points aren't valid with substantial evidence rather then personal retaliation. I am a Christian conservative, however I also believe that there should always be logic applied to an argument that any intellectual person intends on using. It would be easy to pick apart Obama's policies, so why do we need to focus on irreverent allegations.