Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/archive2

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Political Views section

I don't know whether this is a valid criticism to make, but it occurred to me while reading the article that the "Political Views" seection is rather short and vague. Although it's great to make concise comments on issues such as illegal immigration etc., it doesn't really give us a good picture of exactly what he stands for (and no jokes about not standing for anything, please!). What I mean is: the second sentence claims that Obama has the record of a Marxist leftist, but nothing after that point under that section really justifies that statement. Indeed, much of it seems to be better placed under the next section "Faith and Values". It might be pertinent to have a more detailed analysis of individual parts of his policies and stances. PeterS 18:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Obama's stances keep changing depending on which state is next in the primaries. It's a waste of time to attach any significance to his stated positions, other than to recognize how liberal he is.--Aschlafly 18:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps pointing out these changes would be a better idea, Andy. --Ampersand 20:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't view this as a priority, as Obama's supporters only care about his positions against the war and for abortion and don't care about much else, and those positions are spelled out. I'll unlock the entry for you if you'd like to add objective material that shows how he changes his position so often. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I know nothing of Obama's war opinion (aside troop withdrawal) and nothing of him pro-abortion position. Yet, I am still an Obama supporter, despite being non-US, as he is the only one who is not part of the great Washington machinery. It is time for change and the old stalwarts like McCain and Clinton need to go. Change can be good, not always but why not give it a chance? Also, Bush Jnr had waaaaaaay less experience than Obama. MetcalfeM 21:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated

There is no information at all about how Obama was linked to the radical Afro-Centric "Church" in Chicago whose Pastor endorses crazy racialist theorys about Whites, the CIA did AIDS, Jews did 9/11, etcetera. ANd then of course he makes one silly speech that doesnt really say anything, and the liberal media fall over each other to praise him like the secnod coming of jesus. (btw, this isnt really my area of expertise, but I understand some American theologians have seriously considered whether he could be the anti-christ. i don't know if that's enough of a seriously taken theory but you folks should decide whether to mention it at least.

I dont understand why so many pages i try to edit are locked.

I think it is because reality has a well known liberal bias. (I joke, I joke) It just that liberals don't understand how to interpret reality but keep insisting that they do. It isn't like this problem is going away either.--Jroyale 21:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Étienne Léger

Are you referring to Pastor Wright? Karajou 08:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes Jeremiah Wright is his name, he is basically an "afro-centric" race bigot who openly associates with Louis "Hitler was a great man" Farrakhan, he was Obama's chief Spiritual Advisor for many years except now he tries to deny it.
Please propose an encyclopedic-like addition, with a citation. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Agree: not sure why this article would be locked when it clearly needs to be updated to ensure the tone is encyclopedic and not simply derogatory. Otherwise, the reputation of this effort as a "trustworthy encyclopedia" will continue to be severely undermined.

Im starting to think that it is too late to save this site. Its hard to take it seriously with articles like this . . . FernoKlump 18:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

OK Heres my suggestion, probably the English she needs work :) but I found lots of references and I think it's encyclopedia like. It should go under section 9 on "Faith and Values."

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." [1]

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"[2] that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, [3] and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. [4]

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.[5] New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. [6]

This Article is Ridiculous

For God's sake, with articles like this Conservapedia is never going to be taken seriously. A “Marxist leftist"? This is just stupid, he's basically pro-life moderate conservative. FernoKlump 23:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Wow, you really are in the wrong place if you think anyone here is going to be fooled by your comment.--Aschlafly 23:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Fooled? I don't even especially like Barack Obama. Can you honestly say that Obama is a communist? FernoKlump 00:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh I see, my bad, i meant pro-choice . . . Can i change it? FernoKlump 00:49, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Could someone with access add something like "According to the Political Compass, Barack Obama would be better described as a moderate conservative [7]" after the Marxist comment? FernoKlump 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree that in no way can Obama be described a Marxist leftist. I've met Marxist leftists and argued with them a great deal (they tend to have very fixed ideals and observe an astonishing range of fallacies about the very unlamented Soviet Union) and compared to them Obama's a solid centrist. Darkmind1970 07:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, he's politically 'left' of Ann Coulter. By Conservapedian standards, that makes him a bomb-throwing Bolshevik revolutionary fnord. --Gulik5 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

They also tend to be communists and call each other "comrade" and call for collectivism lol. But really, that quote either needs to be removed or balanced with another. Otherwise its just libel. FernoKlump 12:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

It's not libel if it's a Liberal being lied about. Didn't you get the memo? That whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" thing only applies if thy neighbor is a Conservative. --Gulik5 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh, he's a liberal? I didn't know that! I can't find on the page where it says that he is a radical Islamic terrorist[8]. He also a lying homosexual right? why isn't that included? If you need a source I can start a webpage and write that for you. FernoKlump 12:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and Obama could hardly be called our neighbor. No blacks are allowed in conservapedia's neighborhood. FernoKlump 12:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Voting "present" doesn't necessarily indicate a fence-sitter...

Oftentimes, a vote of present indicates that the candidate generally supports a proposal in principle, but is unable to support it in its current form. It's a way of saying "I'm here, I'm interested, but we can't do it this way." Say Congressman A is a strong fiscal conservative and hates deficits. A budget bill comes before the body which cuts taxes but also provides for incremental increases in government programs which Congressman A already believes are hopelessly bloated, and in so doing increases deficit spending. That Congressman might not be able to support the bill but voting "present" would put to the record that he did not outright reject the proposal, but rather that he might be open to supporting a similar, re-worked bill.

Required Changes

This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'. Several claims don't pass muster.

- The claim "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience" is laughingly false and makes this article look plain ignorant. There are well documented details of Obama's foreign policy experience in the article, yet this sentence remains. The reference for this claim is hopelessly incorrect. While this reference is in compliance with the commandments, it was obviously written by someone that didn't do their homework as proof of Obama's foreign policy experience is readily available. The same cannot be said of the next dubious claim.

You're clueless. Obama has zero military or executive experience, and his foreign policy experience is in the lowest 10% of senators. Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???--Aschlafly 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." This comment is the sort of gossip that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Not only has this ridiculous claim been removed and reinserted many times, not a shred of evidence is presented to back up this basically idiotic nonsense. I'd like to think the leadership of this encyclopedia would set a good example for others to follow when writing articles, but there are way too many articles like this one that prove otherwise.

The evidence is overwhelming, with examples provided in the entry. All you have to do is cite some counterexamples. You can't.--Aschlafly 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, the article states that Obama graduated from Harvard Law with honors. That strikes me as a "clear personal achievement". Are you suggesting, therefore, that he didn't deserve said honors, that faculty gave him an easy ride because he's African-American? --RossC 17:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "He won a seat in the U.S. Senate after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, Alan Keyes." This claim is completely without merit. According to Fox News, Ryan was not forced out and the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged him to remain. The idea that liberals somehow obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records is disingenuous at the least and most likely a lie. According to Fox News, the records were released when the Chicago Tribune and Chicago TV station WLS sued. Divorce proceedings are a matter of public record unless the there is a compelling interest to make them private. According to the court, relevant portions of the divorce were kept private and the remaining portions were released. Please note that I am not quoting a liberal source for this information. [1]

The records were confidential and the newspaper that sued for their relief was supportive of Obama. Yes, Jack Ryan was forced out as a result of the disclosures and no one familiar with politics credibly argues otherwise.--Aschlafly 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- This article was unlocked for a brief time a while ago until some vandals made their presence known. Even though the article was vandalized, it actually showed some signs of improvement. As it stands now, this article belongs on an Obama-hating lunatic fringe website, not part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.

I don't expect this factual entry to persuade anyone who is a big supporter of affirmative action, because they don't care what Obama stands for or what his experience is.--Aschlafly 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

The above seems to be someone's comments, debated by ASchlafly? But there's no name attached to any of these comments? Can you put back the signatures of whoever wrote those suggestions?

As to the actual comments ASchlafly, it seems you haven't actually read your own article. You ask "Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???", and the article clearly states that he has indeed been to London and met with Tony Blair. In comparison with all other candidates for the US Presidency, this leaves him "about the same". Most US Presidents do not come to the table with a huge amount of travel experience under their belts - witness the current President, who had never been out of the Continent before becoming President. No matter what you think of the candidate, the suggestion that the only things he has achieved are because of affirmative action beggars belief and doesn't even deserve a response, it's so unutterably stupid. Finally, referring to this article as a "factual entry" is revelatory. Billabong 17:23, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

"Western Europe" should be "continental Europe," because Obama did play second chair for an insignificant visit by a more experienced senator (Lugar) to Tony Blair. If that courtesy call is what you're hanging your hat on, then it merely underscores Obama's lack of experience. But I doubt you'd care anyway, as most Obama supporters don't support him for his experience or even his ever-changing or silent positions.--Aschlafly 17:32, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm delighted to see that you admit you were wrong, so thank you for that - it's good to keep the record straight. Now, for comparison to the other candidates, perhaps you'd like to list the foreign travel and policy experience of your candidate of choice? John McCain is off to Israel, London and Paris I see? Obama indeed does not have the French capital in his past itineraries, but comparing his Conservapedia article to Obama's, it would seem he is FAR more widely travelled than McCain. Finally, your suggestion about affirmative action might as well be directed at Clarence Thomas, since the only requirement you seem to need to make such a comment is the colour of these gentlemen's skin?
PS Finally, could you please put back the sigs of whoever you were responding to? it's impossible to know where these comments come from? Billabong 17:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly: Contrary to your opinion, I am not the clueless one here. I happen to know that the United Kingdom is a part of Western Europe so therefore it can be concluded that Obama has made a trip to Western Europe since he visited London to see Tony Blair. Since you are making the claim that his foreign policy experience is the 'lowest 10% of senators', could you provide a reference please?
Where is this overwhelming evidence that Obama's success is explained by affirmative action? If it is so overwhelming, then you or the person that made this assertion should have absolutely no problem providing the reference. Where is the evidence in the article? I couldn't find anything. Could you provide this allegedly 'clueless' individual, as you like to call me, the specific line number?
Because Ryan refused to run for office after his divorce proceedings were made public, this means, using your line of reasoning, that the 'National Republican Senatorial Committee' lacks credibility. Perhaps this should be added to the article?
There are a lot of alleged 'facts' in this article that are nothing more than gossip and unsupported innuendo. According to the commandments that you wrote, these items should be removed. How can this article be a part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' if no attempt is made to follow the commandments and guidelines?
I happen to care what Obama, Clinton, and McCain stand for because I plan to vote and I want my vote to mean something. If someone wants to base their vote on what is written in Conservapedia, then they will be seriously misinformed. --Jimmy 21:30, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Law Professor

The sentence about Obama "falsely claiming to be a constitutional law professor" should be changed. According to the University of Chicago, he was considered to be a professor.

Tordenvaer 19:14, 29 March 2008 (EST)

He was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor. There's a big difference. The University of Chicago only considers Obama a professor, he wasn't actually one, as he falsely claimed to be. Lyra Belaqua talk 21:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
You're wasting your time, Tordenvaer. Certain people on here see nothing wrong in saying someone's not a professor if it suits their purposes and/or prejudices, even when there is ample evidence otherwise. See the Richard Dawkins article and Talk Page for an extremely good example of this. Urushnor 16:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
As an aside, Lyra, considering it is, in fact, universities that bestow the title of 'professor', if the University of Chicago basically saying that, as far as they were concerned, he was a professor, isn't 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? You also state that there is a big difference between 'Senior Lecturer' and 'professor'. Read the link given by Tordenvaer. The University of Chicago completely disagrees with you there. Urushnor 16:57, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
In other words, if liberals like someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then liberals are going to call him a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. Perhaps we should add this to liberal positions.--Aschlafly 20:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Done. --₮K/Talk 00:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Alternatively, if conservatives dislike someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then conservatives are going to deny that he is a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. Murray 23:36, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Really? Perhaps you can tell us who peer-reviewed Obama's work, and when, and what the outcome was.--Aschlafly 23:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Most likely the U of C law faculty did, repeatedly throughout his time working there, as all departments do with all faculty. The outcome was that they asked him to join the faculty full-time. In addition to the statement linked above, there is [2] (para 3). They did not offer him a full-time position because they thought he was good-looking. Murray
Well, I'll put it this way - who is more likely to be correct in who is or is not a professor? Aschlafly or the Universities of Chicago and Oxford? Personally, I'll go with the universities, and thus accept both Dawkins and Obama are professors, in one way or another. Urushnor 22:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Certain people can't handle the truth, Urushnor. Regardless of what U-Chicago's feeling is, he's a senior lecturer, not a professor. The university never gave him that title. Lyra Belaqua talk 23:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
'The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."
'From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'Jtimber 23:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Precisely. It seems that certain people cannot handle the truth, indeed - Obama made a comment, in passing, which his opponents seized upon to try to brand him as a liar, because they thought it was wrong, as his actual title was 'Senior Lecturer', but now can't handle the truth that, in fact, 'Senior Lecturers' are regarded as professors, so the comment was correct. I also note, Lyra, that you still haven't actually answered my question - given that it is universities that bestow the title of professor, if a university saying that someone is or was a professor is not 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? Urushnor 00:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I believe I've already answered that question. My point was that he was not full-track. Lyra Belaqua talk 00:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
No, from the above, your point was quite clearly that 'he was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor', to quote you exactly. The University of Chicago says he was a 'Senior Lecturer', which is considered to be a professor. So you haven't actually answered that question at all, unless you changing your point is your way of saying, 'oops, I was wrong - he is a professor, just not a full-time or tenure-track one'. Urushnor 01:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Allow me to explain. When he says he is a professor, many people will assume he means a full-time teaching committment, regardless of U of C's technicalities. It's a bit deceitful. Lyra Belaqua talk 14:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
During the time he worked as a senior lecturer, he was practicing law as well. I've actually read The Audacity of Hope. Lyra Belaqua talk 14:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't really think it's that deceitful; he's just using common parlance versus the technical term. Technically, yes, he was a senior lecturer/adjunct faculty, but I knew lecturers at the university who would hold themselves out as professors. It's not deceit, it's just simplification, I think.-DParker 20:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken very seriously. If someone like Dan Quayle had attempted Obama's self-serving "simplification", as you put it, then Quayle would have been strung up and run off the stage.--Aschlafly 20:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I totally concur--what Obama should be saying is he worked as a "part-time professor," if at all. Lyra Belaqua talk 20:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Obama held the position of senior lecturer for years, and surely understood what his title was. It doesn't seem too much to expect him not to exaggerate his credential.--Aschlafly 20:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken very seriously... Yes and no. Titles are meaningful, and indicate how prestigious a position is and generally the salary level. However, titles vary dramatically across university systems. For example, in the U. of Illinois system, Adjunct Professor is the equivalent a Lecturer at U of C - it indicates someone who is a part-time faculty member, hired solely to teach classes, either because there are not enough full-time faculty or to allow the full-timers more time for research. In the U. of California system though, an Adjunct Professor is a full-time faculty member, and UC guidelines suggest that on, for example, grant applications, an Adjunct Professor use the title of Professor to avoid confusion. So an Adjunct Professor in Champaign would be stretching it to use the title of Professor, whereas someone with the same title in LA or Berkeley would not. So titles are certainly meaningful, but their specific meaning isn't always readily apparent Murray 21:36, 31 March 2008 (EDT)


Would someone unlock this for a brief moment? Thanks! --₮K/Talk 00:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

First St. Francis Assisi, then Mentang Besuki

There's a line in the Early Life section of the bio that gets the order of Obama's Indonesian elementary schools reversed. The Catholic one was first, for almost three years. The public one was only the last year or so. The misinformation is repeated in Faith and Values section. Says his father was a nonpracticing Muslim. Other sources say atheist. His stepfather was a practicing Muslim, however. No mention of the Afrocenric theology of TUCC. See Linda Chavez' article in NR online on this. Andyvphil 10:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Questions about This Article

No offense, but this article is very biased, and much of it lacks sources. Shouldn't there be sources for it, and if there are none should it not be removed? TheNobleSith 01:14, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

43 citations. How many more do you want?--Aschlafly 08:53, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps something to cite things that are obviously personal attacks, such as this: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.". That sounds more like an opinion than a definition of fact, and there's not citation for it anyway. Also, the lead for his article seems to be one giant summary of his political views, portrayed negatively. Very biased. Not sure how that is delt with here, but we try to keep things neutral on Wikipedia. TheNobleSith 10:31, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not require citations for statements like that. And even if they were there, they would just be links to conservative opinion pieces. Best to just leave it alone... the article as it is stands quite well as a reminder to visitors that this is a very different site from Wikipedia, for a variety of interesting reasons.--TomMoore 00:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Image switch

I think you meant to say add placement bias. Murray 22:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Obama built his campaign on anti-American donations. A photo of his anti-patriotic posture reflects his campaign far more than a standard and unrevealing portrait photo does.--Aschlafly 22:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Here are Obama's top 20 donors: Goldman Sachs, University of California, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers (investment banking firm), Citigroup, National Amusements (who own 1400 theaters), Sidney Austin (law firm), Harvard, Google, Skadden Arps (law firm), Exelon, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Jones Day (law firm), Wilmerhale (law firm), Latham Watkins (more lawyers), University of Chicago, Kirkland & Ellis (lawyers), Citadel Investment Group. Not exactly a list of crazy liberals. But the point was really the comparison to all the pages of other senators here, all of which (if they have an image) have an official picture at the top. Murray 23:16, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Meaningless statistic, and only a tiny fraction of Obama's fundraising. His big money source is types, and no one can deny that he's tapping into the stridently anti-war (and often anti-American) types. People are going to Obama's entry because he's running for president, not because he's a senator, and the photo placement should reflect that.--Aschlafly 23:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Furthermore, I do not see how you can call forces within America anti-American, that title used to be restricted to foreign forces. Soviet Russia was anti-American. MoveOn is not. The American Colonies were anti-British, I suppose. Lyra Belaqua talk 00:18, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
You might as well give it up, before you get 90/10ed. From reading this site, it's pretty clear that on Planet Conservapedia, the GOP is America, and Liberals are all mindless robot drones created by Satan himself to DESTROY AMERICA, propelled by their disgusting glandular urges, hatred for all things Good and Holy and American and Conservative (as redundant as that is), and the occasional telepathic directive from the Ghost of Charles Darwin fnord. Thus, the very concept of Liberal patriotism is an oxymoron. --Gulik5 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
In Soviet Russia, rules follow you! In any case, Liberal just means willing to embrace new ideas and change. More people should recogize that. Lyra Belaqua talk 00:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I know its not really important, but the colonials mainly considered themselves British and were fighting for their British rights about up until the Decleration of Indepedence was signed. FernoKlump 00:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

And after that, they would've all been hanged as traitors to Crown and Country if they'd lost. Got to remember that part... --Gulik5 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, the mini-series "John Adams" is very good, but the assertion that FernoKlump makes is not correct. Originally they were fighting for the rights afforded to all British subjects, but long before the Declaration of Independence was signed, most of the "heavy hitters" had long since realized there would be no reconciliation with the Crown. --₮K/Talk 00:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes. The Founding Fathers must have been considered very unpatriotic by the British during the Revolution. Lyra Belaqua talk 00:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Maybe most of the "heavy hitters" had realized they were fighting for their independence, but the avererage colonial didn't really realize that until the decleration. FernoKlump 10:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)


Put him in Category:African Americans -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

This is absurd. Conservatives don't categorize people by race.--Aschlafly 18:49, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Except for segregationists FernoKlump 20:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Those were primarily Democrats, you realize? Racists are just that, and don't depend on idealogical labels to be so. I know so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" who often express racist thinking. --₮K/Talk 20:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Shall I put Adam Sandler into Category:Jewish Americans too, Deborah? --

Those segregationists were southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") and were social conservatives. Status as a Democrat or Republican doesn't necessarily label people in the past as liberal or conservative. Today Republicans tend to be conservative and Democrats tend to be liberal, but the Republican party was originally established to end slavery. Abolitionism was a VERY liberal idea at the time. FernoKlump 20:56, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
No, abolitionism came from Massachusetts Puritans, and they were conservative. Southern Democrats (like Jimmy Carter) were not conservative.--Aschlafly 21:29, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
They weren't conservative if they wanted an end to slavery. Liberal, by definition, is the advocacy of change. An end to slavery would have been change. Therefore, an advocacy of the end of slavery would be liberal. Southern democrats, like Governor George Wallace, were conservatives because they sought to preserve the existing institution of segregation.


Liberal- Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs

Conservative- Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

FernoKlump 21:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Your definition is meaningless. Conservatives, for example, want big change on abortion. Use the more meaningful definitions and explanations found on this site.--Aschlafly 21:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
No, Conservatives want to revert back to before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. Look at that definition again. FernoKlump 21:58, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
FernoKlump, your history at CP is one of endless talk, talk, talk, argue, argue, argue. Yet, coming here, you were told up-front, if by nothing else than the name, this is a conservative encyclopedia. Somehow a very small number of users, feel they have a right or obligation to turn this encyclopedia into a debate site. I feel an obligation to point out to you CP wasn't put here to provide a debate vehicle for you and other liberals.
You might want to look up, while you are busy with that dictionary, the meaning of "goodbye". I have a feeling you're going to need it. --₮K/Talk 22:19, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
TK, you probably shouldn't be indulging in personal remarks of that quality, which go against the Conservapedia Guidelines ("You must be civil. No bullying.") Your shirt is still the right color, though, so maybe you'll be okay. Just thought I'd let you know.--TomMoore 22:40, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
  • TomMore, please keep in mind that Conservapedia rejects the European and Wikipedia definitions of being "civil" and "bullying". Me stating facts, about arguing and endless talk, are factual, therefore conservatives do not view that as bullying, or uncivil. What is uncivil is the introduction, the forced introduction, of foreign definitions that American conservatives expressly reject. Users who do nothing but post contentious comments to conservatives, and denigrate what we believe, should perhaps consider starting their own liberal encyclopedia and stop wasting time here. CP doesn't grant the right of endless arguing, talk, talk, talk. --₮K/Talk 01:28, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Guys, this is silly. Lets end it. And he is right, this is an encyclopedia, not a debate site. HenryS 22:46, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

1) I'm not a liberal. 2) I understand that this encyclopedia is supposed to have a conservative bias, but it has degenerated into a "how liberals are ruining America" encyclopedia. I really like the idea of an encyclopedia that tries to present things from a conservative view, but this site is just embarassing to the conservative cause and unrealistic (like "Conservatives don't categorize people by race", when reality says otherwise). There is a big difference between a conservative point of view and a conservative version of reality. If I deserved to be banned for fighting against the lies that make conservapedia unreliable, then ban me. FernoKlump 23:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, not in the MVSN. Doesn't count.--TomMoore 23:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
MVSN? HenryS 23:15, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
The blackshirts (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) ? FernoKlump 23:17, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Don't know who they are... I looked at blackshirts but there's nothing there. It's just a nickname :)--TomMoore 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

I didn't see anything on conservapedia about what 'MVSN' would mean, so I thought it might be a wikipedia term. I searched and got the blackshirts, which are basically Italian fascists. FernoKlump 23:25, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, this obviously has nothing to do with improving the article, so lets end it. Thanks in advance, HenryS 23:27, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Proposed addition

It is seeming like this was lost due to all the chatter on the talk page, i don't know what everybody thinks of it. here is my proposal under "faith and values" section:

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." [9]

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"[10] that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, [11] and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. [12]

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.[13] New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. [14]

I've unprotected the page for you to edit it as you think best.--Aschlafly 18:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Reversion explained

Ideologically motivated "citation needed" insertions, for statements that are not seriously disputed, are not allowed. This is not Wikipedia where that same stunt by liberals occurs repeatedly.--Aschlafly 21:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank-you for the explanation. My citation request was not 'ideologically motivated', it was a simple request for a reference to an 'ideologically motivated' statement. My request also follows Commandment #2, something you have been willing to overlook in many of the articles I have edited. I get the idea that I would not be afforded the same opportunity to make the same statements without references since I'm not an administrator or the founder of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 22:17, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm reinserting the other edit since you have no objection to it, thanks. --Jimmy 22:20, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama's actual title was Senior Lecturer, not Professor.--Aschlafly 22:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

And according to his university, a senior lecturer is a professor. It's that simple. --Jimmy 22:27, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
You're misconstruing what the media relations department said. Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't).--Aschlafly 23:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I am really interested to know what you are basing your "Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't)" on Aschlafly? What info do you have to say it is the perception of the media dep. and not actually true? AdenJ 05:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

If you cannot give ANY evidence to back your claims up Aschlafly then the article should include what the university states. And, I might add, the media dep. is responsible for answering media enquiries hence the media dep. answering the query whether or not Obama is a prof. or not. So ADD THE REFERENCE OR LOOK LIKE A FOOL. Your choice AdenJ 06:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Your quarrel is with the dictionary, not with me, and the citations about the "professor" issue are well-supported by the entry. In case you have problems following a link, I'll quote the observation on the Democratic Underground site, which is also well-supported with cites: [3]
[Obama's] publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort .... Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of affirmative action in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.
... [H]e is not a Professor of Constitutional Law. Nor is he an assistant professor or associate professor. ...

By the way, AdenJ, any more namecalling from you in violation of our rules will result in blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:29, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Heh. We see what you did there--quoting the website Democratic Underground as if to show that even liberals think Obama's professor claim is invalid. In reality, of course, the DU item was posted by an anonymous commentator ("agdlp"), something anyone could do, and hardly a reliable cite given that said post provides no evidence, just links repeating the claim. I could go on that site and write a post saying that Obama is an alien from the planet Mar’xennui, but that wouldn't make it true or cite-able. And as to your (repetition of the) claim that "given his relatively strong academic credentials...Obama would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position...but he didn't", please note that the UofChicago statement notes that Obama was offered a tenure-track position several times, but declined.--RossC 12:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Your comments don't add anything. Look, if it makes you feel better to believe that Obama is somehow a professor, then suit yourself. By objective standards, including the dictionary, he plainly is not and never was.--Aschlafly 12:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
How about we compromise? "Obama has claimed he was a constitutional law professor when he was actually a Senior Lecturer." That seems to fit with the facts better, and it circumvents what is starting to amount to a semantics debate. --Ampersand 18:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
No, that doesn't capture the false boasting. And, by the way, your other edits to this entry also do not convey the truth, as in the boasting about the poverty bill that was a non-starter and never passed.--Aschlafly 18:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Which edit was that? The only edits I've made to the page were the foreign policy experience one (which you've reverted) and helping organize the sections a bit. --Ampersand 18:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Question about lead

The opening line of the third paragraph reads "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience." While nobody can dispute the lack of military or executive experience, could his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee count as foreign policy experience? Don't get me wrong, it's still not much experience, but it would seem to be enough to remove the foreign policy part. Thoughts? --Ampersand 15:41, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Mere membership on a congressional committee does not constitute "foreign policy" experience.--Aschlafly 18:05, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
It doesn't make him a scholar or an expert on it, but I would've thought it would move him out of the category of "absolutely none". --Ampersand 18:09, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Ampersand: You are now finding out that facts are not a substitute for the world that the Conservapedia leadership has constructed. It is a fact that Obama has foreign policy experience, but that does not matter to the people in charge. I have brought up issues like this numerous times on many other articles but usually nothing happens. Nothing happens to the articles this is, but I have been blocked on numerous occasions for trying to make this encyclopedia reflect the real world. Good luck! --Jimmy 19:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Merely being on a committee is not foreign policy experience. That is self-evident.--Aschlafly 20:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You are absolutely 100% correct. But it has been demonstrated that Obama has made overseas trips with the Foreign Affairs Committee and has discussed policy with other world leaders and diplomats. This is a fact that cannot be denied in face of the irrefutable evidence that has been provided. No matter how limited his foreign policy experience has been; the sentence in the opening paragraph (Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience) is laughingly false. Presenting such inaccurate information as fact only gives ammunition to Conservapedia's critics. There are plenty of other factual criticisms that can be leveled at Obama without making up dumb factoids. --Jimmy 20:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Lead section question

In the second paragraph, this sentence "According to political expert and Republican strategist Karl Rove, became his "political mentors," and launched is state Senate campaign and subsequent national political career" seems to be missing a word. Does anyone know what it is?

Ok, there is so much misinformation here idk where to start

I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives, but there is a ton of bad information here that really is not true and to discriminate against this man is blatently racist, especially in the way its being done: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" wtf people?? First of all, generalization such as this is a breach of most online encyclopedia protocol. Second of all, the assumption that he benefited from affirmative action is nothing more than an assumption, NOT fact. He went to Harvard, thus he is a smart man. Furthermore, why should he have to provide proof in a "clear personal achievement" that he does not rely on affirmative action? Assuming that a black man cannot succeed without affirmative action is not only racist, but also untrue. Next controversial statement in this article: "Barack Obama has captivated black and educated white voters, largely because of his race". How can anyone make that assessment? It is, once again, based off pure imagination rather than fact, as is further demonstrated by the lack of any sources backing it. The author also claims that Bill Clinton dismissed Barack's claim that he was against the war from the start as a "fairy tale". I checked the source of this statement, which is in actuality a website acknowledging Clinton's apology towards the "fairy tale" comment. Furthermore we must realize that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in fact married, which might perhaps explain why Bill Clinton might want to tarnish the rep of Clinton's main opponent. Again, more BS: "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience" Sure, he isn't as experienced as Hillary, but generally, when a candidate runs for the presidency, they do not have experience in being president. Another ridiculous claim here: Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in physics, yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." I checked up on this source as well, which has been misinterpreted by the author of this page here. Obama wrote a paper on the constitution, to which he used an analogy of space-time physics. In much the same way George Orwell's animal farm uses a farm to relate to communism. Orwell didn't have to be a farmer to write the book, and Obama doesn't need to be a nuclear physicist to read up on relativity. If anything, Obama's ability to understand the basic gist of physics without taking physics courses actually lends credence to his own intellect. Something that didn't come as a result of affirmative action. AND... he can say "nuclear". Neo-cons have no right to bash intelligence. Further on in the article, the author claims that "Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses[9] on the Constitution.[10]" Note the sources. They aren't sources. They don't lead anywhere or cite anything, but are just statements. AND they have nothing to do with this statement. If this encyclopedia is so trustworthy, why can't it provide proper sources for its misinformation?? Later on, the author makes the statement that Barack Obama has voted present 130 time in the IL senate and this is a reason to disbelieve him. This is in fact, true information, but I do have a problem with the heavy slant. Obama's aides say Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. Also, in Illinois law it is not unusual to protest bills with a present vote. You can check up on my facts, because it is found in the same source our author used to make the claim that Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times." In the second paragraph, the author says "He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at The University of Chicago Law School as of 2004.[14] He is no longer active at the school". Whereas the same source that was cited claims that "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Thus he WAS a professor after all. Check your information next time. I don't mind conservatives, in the old sense of the word. A true conservative worked to maintain the rights of business owners and left the economy alone. A true conservative kept taxes low and government spending no higher. What we get today are social conservatives. People who believe in the white christian male america. People who claim that the only way a smart, educated black man could be running for president is due to affirmative action. You criticize Reverend Wright for saying "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." Look at yourselves. Give this man a chance; he did not go to Harvard because he was black nor does he recieve the support of both white and black america, red and blue america, and male and female america because he is black. This article is not trustworthy, or factual, but it is a bash. Now I am too tired to go through the remaining half of the article. Time to get a kick out of the Kangaroo one.

I stopped reading after your bigoted "I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives,'" remark. HenryS 21:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't even have to read that far. The above long-winded rant, too incoherent to read, let alone understand, illustrates the liberal style. I doubt he'd even agree with a conservative who says that "2+2=4".--Aschlafly 22:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Annie Oakley

This one needs to be phrased a little better. Just because something is outside of one's generation doesn't mean they can't possibly know what it is. --Ampersand 22:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Nothing in Obama's background suggests he would have any idea who Annie Oakley was, and all evidence (including Obama's age) suggests he wouldn't. The conclusion by USA Today is self-evident.--Aschlafly 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I still think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that because someone was born after a certain date they're immune to cultural influences preceding them. Also, the conclusion's by a syndicated columnist, not USA Today itself. --Ampersand 23:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Even John McCain wasn't alive when Annie Oakley died :D . And even Obama knows that Oakley was a female gun shooter. He was using it to make it appear that Hillary exaggerated her experience with guns as a child. Darkknight 20:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)


The "Choice" bill is not just "supported by" the abortion industry, but is for its direct benefit.--Aschlafly 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Lapel pin

The sentence "Notice Obama's lack of an American flag lapel pin" completely ignores how he's not wearing a jacket. No lapel, no lapel pin. --Ampersand 00:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Obama doesn't wear the flag when he is wearing a jacket either. By the way, I do think pins work on shirts! The caption could profitably omit the word "lapel".--Aschlafly 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
True, and criticism of him for it is valid. I'm still uncomfortable with the sentence being there at all since it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it, though. A more effective attack would be to find pictures of McCain and Hillary wearing them and one of him not and putting them together side by side in a single image to illustrate him not wearing a lapel pin. That'd drive the point home more effectively, I think. --Ampersand 15:49, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

How Mike Ditka Unintentionally Boosted Obama's Rise to Prominence

An observation that I've not seen commented on in the press...

When scandal ridden Jack Ryan's Illinois US Senate campaign was falling apart, Obama looked like a shoe in....until ex-Bear's coach Mike Ditka seriously began considering pleas from some top Republcians that he should run for the Senate. And Ditka was doing interviews about his and his wife's thoughts on the matter, giving IL Republicans considerable hope. Suddenly, Democrats feared that even Chicago's normally reliable voters might hand the popular Ditka a landslide.

It was during this two or three week frenzy over the question of whether Ditka would run that Obama, with little seniority and experience, was picked to give a major address at the Democrat's National Convention endorsing John Kerry...a move clearly intended to give Obama a boost with Illinois voters. Obama ran with the opportunity and gave a speech that garnered lot's of favorable press and turned him into a media darling and pushed him toward a an extremely early presidential run. In my opinion, his rise to stardom was indirectly sparked by the fear that Mike Ditka might "steal" the IL senate seat out from under the Democrats. Unfortunately, Mike (apparantly at the behest of his wife) decided the Senate life wasn't for him afterall.

Without Mike's near run, Obama never would have become such a media least not so early in his career.--Billy21 13:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Interesting analysis, but I doubt one evening at the Democratic National Convention had much to do with this. I'd say Hillary's electoral weakness is a bigger factor. And, of course, the liberal media has long been obsessed with race. When Rush Limbaugh commented that he felt a media focus on race influenced the choice of quarterback on an NFL team, he had to quit his job as a sports analyst.--Aschlafly 15:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
I always thought the media's obsession with race and gender was incorrect in this race. From my experience, the main dividing line in the Democratic Party right now is generational. Clinton represents the baby boomers while Obama represents the youth, which is a large part of why her strength has been older voters and his strength has been younger ones. --Ampersand 15:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
I think there is a higher correlation in voting based on race than on age here.--Aschlafly 15:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Race is definitely a factor, but within the white Democratic electorate you can see some definite splits that indicate a generational gap. The wealthier you are, the higher your education and the lower your age, the more likely you are to vote for Obama. The lower your income, the lower your education and the higher your age, the more likely you are to vote for Clinton. Now, given that many senior citizens, especially those who were blue-collar workers, are on fixed incomes and pensions, we could partially tie income into age. Education-wise, there tend to be more college graduates in the younger demographics than in the older demographics simply because young people have more educational opportunities than their parents or grandparents had. Now of course there are exceptions, just like there are exceptions to everything. But personally? I view the Democratic primary as a fight between my generation and a generation that's still in a metaphorical way fighting the Vietnam War. That's this young college liberal's take on the Democratic race. --Ampersand 16:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Affirmative action

  • He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.

Who said this? Should we endorse it? --Ed Poor Talk 16:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Joseph Farah: The affirmative-action president

Maybe we should give him credit; I would hate to be accused of plagiarism over this. --Ed Poor Talk 16:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Here's some things I found on the subject: [4][5][6][7] Karajou 16:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
I think Conservapedia had the term first, see Affirmative Action President, but I'm all for adding citations to others who also use it.--Aschlafly 17:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
From a couple of the links I provided above, the remark may have come from Geraldine Ferraro. Karajou 17:02, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
No, I think the Ferraro kerfuffle was early March. CP's article on the subject began in January. I think all of these other johnny-come-latelys need to give Andy credit.--RossC 17:22, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
This quote comes from here [8]:
"This presents Barack Obama with unique opportunity. Having campaigned against the passage of the Michigan initiative, can he chart a new path now that he is running for president? And, having admitted he attended Harvard law school because of affirmative action, can he now say the time has come to try something different?" Karajou 17:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
I've checked some more and apparently Conservapedia coined the term Affirmative Action President first. The uses by others were subsequent to the entry here.--Aschlafly 20:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
  8. Barack HUSSEIN Obama!