Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Ann Coulter

2008-09-13T21:48:33Z

OtherSide:

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}

[[/1|Archive 1]]

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
: just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
this article needs a "criticisms" subsection in order to be fair. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 22:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:The only criticism I can think of is, why can not I find articles on Google articles Anne Coulter wrote three years ago, that I know are there? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
::Are the files/articles still on the site where they were originally? The google cache doesn't keep everything until the end of time. If they are still there, is there a robots.txt that prevents google from spidering it? Have you checked other search engines too? If you know the name of the article you might be able to find a reference to it and then use the wayback machine to find an archived copy of it (again, given that the wayback machine wasn't prevented from spidering it either). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I am only going by memory; I got vivid recall in detail of [[meme]]s, yet using them as search terms yields zilch. Hence, I would be reluctant to allow any sort of "criticism", there seems to be a pretty active effort to silence and defame her, and I see no cause whatsoever why CP should be party to it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: There are many ways for site administrators to block spiders from indexing the site. Additionaly, newspapers and caches only have so much storage and tend not to store every single article for eternity - especially opinion pieces. With person who is in the public spotlight, a significant amount of material is and it can be difficult to find older articles that have dropped back in search relevance. Additionaly, if you are a person in the media and you want your material to be found later, make sure you archive a copy on your own web space and don't prevent spiders from searching for it. Are any of these articles you mention on her own website? It has a column archive which would presumably have what you are looking for. There is also an archive of columns that she wrote for http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp . Are the articles you are looking for in either of those lists? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting that you say you can't find any criticism of Ann Coulter. It tells me that bias has blinded you to reality. Ann makes many interesting, relevant, and valid points. Her personal (ad-hominem) attacks also border on the insane. You'd rather just deal with the former, and ignore the latter, because why?

If you want the intellectual and moral high ground, if you want to claim "truth", move past these kind of attacks, and at very least talk about what they are. I think Coulter's personal attacks are geared to make the feebleminded snicker. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 16:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Odd, and here I have always thought her remarks were intended for the more intellectual, given her frequent use of words most citizens do not understand or forgotten the meaning of. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

do you mean statements like this? "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly" -ann coulter [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:Cite an instance where that's not true. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you serious? You believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was driven by Satan and lied constantly? Or that Bobby Kennedy was? Or Susan B. Anthony? Or Rev. V. Gene Robinson? Or Cecil Williams? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Here's the point about [[deceit]]: the biggest victim of deceit is when the deceitful person begins beleiving his/her/it/transgender's own lies. Thus, a person driven by Satan can lie to themself that they are not, when in fact they actually are. Now, if you are a rational person, you surely can understand this perfectly logical point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Jesus? His message was love. He was anti-violence. Pretty liberal, eh? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:32, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
:Love is the liberal message? All I hear is spewing hate. You might have love confused with unnatural acts of copulation, which is pretty much all the Democratic party & liberalism has stood for now for the past 10 or 15 years. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
*Mtur, in today's world, where Katie Curic is attacked by Liberal whackos at moveon.org for reporting fairly about Iraq, I don't think Bobby Kennedy, who was the one who personally approved the wiretapping of MLK, would last a year in public life. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:10, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

"spewing hate" pretty much sums up my criticism of ann coulter. I'm not here to fight the big conservo vs. lib battle, to debate the bible vs other ideas - just to help write conservapedia. Ann coulter says hateful things. She's certainly an intellectual, and makes people think, but - to sum it up- i think the entry loses perspective and validity by not examining her methods in detail. If we all thought like ann spoke, where would we be as a society? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:Please refrain from spewing hate against Ann Coulter; Coulter in reality is parody of liberals we've all been forced to accept as rational spokespeople for liberal ideals for more than half a century. Libs can dish it out, but when a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage pantomimes liberal's ideas of rational discourse and civility on public affairs, suddenly it becomes hate speech. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think she's doing parody, or pantomiming, but more like trying to expose liberal viewpoints as stupid and rediculous by taking over the top counter-arguments. things like saying Darfur is not a real genocide. there is a political message there, but if you want to talk reality, look at how hateful that statement is. mabye you (and many others) think it's okay to say they wished that mcveigh had bombed everyone at the NYT, or "i think women should be armed but not vote". but your reasons must be hateful ones. ann coulter is a self described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative". i dare you to respond without a single reference to "liberals". [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 12:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
:The Darfur genocide comment is exactly a parody of respected liberal spokespeople and arguments; very much in the same vein as "General Betray-Us."

:To deny these types of vicious, liberal snarks and smears is not considered acceptable, and respected, borders on trolling. Why just yesterday I read an AP report that said "in other bad economic news" [http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/09/16/jobless_claims_soar_by_71000/]; this sort of trite trash really gets old very quickly. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

ok, she's doing parody about genocide? people getting butchered? i don't get it- what's the point? is it funny that people are calling for action in the Sudan? I agree with you re: "bad economic news today" but (im assuming you're percieving it as a knock against W) those kinds of headlines occur regardless of who is in office. reporters want to make a story out of something. plus, right now genuinely are a few bad economic things happening. more knocks against conservatives? yeah, mabye. and mabye more reporters just happen to be liberal.

you say coulter's genocide comments are parody just like movon.org's general betray-us is. then you use it as an example of "vicious, liberal snarks and smears". thus, coulter's genocide comment is also vicious, snark and smear. just like I said. if you want to talk about moveon.org. let me say that i don't think they're helping anything in this country, much less liberalism.

all in all, i tend to think ann coulter is a conservative middle finger to the liberal left. and conservatives like it. end of story.

[[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 08:45, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

BTW, your link above is to a 2005 article.

== silly Coulter ==
Silly Coulter, Adams apples are for men! [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

== Coulter & Sarcasm ==

I think some consideration should be given to the view that almost all of Coulter's positions are too peurile to be seriously held, and that her entire body of work must be satirical and intended to make a mockery of anyone who finds her points to be at all insightful if taken at face value.

Coulter using sarcasm is mean spirited. Hillary or Gore using it, is merely highlighting a point. Moveon.org stating in a full page advertisement a respected and dedicated General a traitor is "excess". Giuliani responding in the same venue, calling them out for that abomination is "elevating mud throwing and personal attacks very early in the election process". Can you not see how this goes? Do you really feel MSM is fair? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

i definately see what you're saying, and mabye it exposes the bias that reporters have. however, coulter takes her sarcasm to the next level, let's be honest. 08:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:No, sometimes when Coulter uses sarcasm it is mean-spirited, but if you ever actually have read an entire book chapter (or several columns) all the way through, you'll see that she uses sarcasm primarily as an attention-getting device. She doesn't actually hate her ideological opponents: she is heaping more ridicule on their faulty thinking than on them as people.

:In that spirit, let me emphasize that ''only an idiot would think I was literally impugning your intelligence''! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

::I think it's possible for two reasonable people to come to two different conclusions about Coulter's writing style. I think you're a reasonable person, Ed, and I think you believe what you just said about her. I believe that I am a reasonable person as well, and I think (having read a dozen or so of her columns and 1.5 of her books) that she's fairly mean-spirited and full of anger and condescension if not actual hatred. If it's an act, it's so good as to render the question moot. Or so says I, at least. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-doesn't like lib gasbags either....''
:::This might be expected of her, having to live in New York City and all. The atmosphere sure is intolerant and suffocating of dissent and free thinkers like Coulter. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*shrug* You're welcome to let people off the hook like that if you prefer. I don't. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-o/~Dif'rent Strokes to rule the world, yes it does... o/~''
::::On balance, she probably should be applauded and encouraged for standing up to the intolerance and intimidation of minority thought in place like New York City, and cowering before bullies and fascists only encourages them. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:04, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, applaud away. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 00:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: well, i for one am glad that the majority is outright against hate-mongering vitriol, regardless of those subtle messages encoded within for the more intellectual among us. It actually bodes well for our country. However, perhaps i'm just a liberal driven by Satan and am simply lying to myself about it. What was it you were saying about facism and stifiling minority dissent with bullying? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 10:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

<--
When the political consulting team of [[James Carville]], [[Larry Flynt]], and [[Paul Begala]] cease their antics, Larry Flynt retires, wills his entire estate to an orphanage in Trust, and stops trying set-up and blackmail people like [[Jim Jeffords]] and [[Larry Craig]], is the day Ann Coulter will be reined in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm all for criticizing ALL of the above people for their poor words and bad actions. Deal? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I guess we need Flynt & Begala entries then. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Go right ahead, what with this being a wiki and all you should have no problem. You work on those, and leave the people interested in the Coulter criticisms to take care of those. Everyone ends up happy, and CP remains fair. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This Coulterism [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email] isn't just being sarcastic, its the basis for badly needed new article. [[institutional racial hoaxism]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Legal career ==

Can we have an entry on Ms. Coulter's legal career. Assuming, of course, that she has one? [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

==M. Stanton Evans==
Good quote from Coulter on [[M. Stanton Evans]] new book, "the greatest book since the Bible, M. Stanton Evans' ''Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies''." [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824] We just need a place to put it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:04, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== Hatred ==

Im sorry but this woman preaches hatred and gives conservative a bad name entirely, she called Jews imperfect christians for gods sake, that is a hateful comment, she is a bigot, she is too far to the right, and when you go to far to the right you become the opposite of a communist... a Nazi. She would quite happily send us back 70 years. The article doesn`t reflect the fact that even moderate conservatives find her offensive, and conservatives should not condon her actions. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 10:58, 21 December 2007 (EST)

:And the hate from the liberals that she preaches against on TV, radio, and her books doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:20, 21 December 2007 (EST)

: The article quotes those comments; what more do you want? The reader can decide whether they are hateful or not. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:18, 24 December 2007 (EST)

And if you can't decide, it's not a problem; the article tells you right from the start:

''Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by establishment critics and liberals in general, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that liberals can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. [2] [3]''

*Liberals = intolerant attacks
*Ann Coulter = exposure of hypocrisy, occasional twitting

Nice to have things made simple! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)

is that ment to be a joke, --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 14:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

: That's "meant", not "ment". More importantly, please open your mind a bit for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Open minds are great, and Ann Coulter probably does make a lot of very good points. But you can be simultaneously valid and offensive, and the article should not attempt to dismiss this by putting such a spin on her "controversy" in the very second paragraph. As mentionned before, the quotes speak for themselves, so let the readers decide. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:::I hate people who won't fix things themselves => shorthand for '''I hate it when people ...''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::Um... Thanks for unlocking the article...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)

::::: My Mind is open about this, and I still see a hate monger, Mr. Schlafay. Evidence to the point: [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml Christian Crusading], [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/national/main3358373.shtml?source=mostpop_story Anti-Semitic statements], and [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter092801.asp Anti-Islamic sentiments]. My evidence towards the theory that Ann Coulter is a Hate Monger and a Religious Facist is on the table. You may now post a counter argument. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 18:57 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

:::::: The article has quotes from her. The reader can form his own opinions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)

== Isn't Coulter pro-choice? ==

I thought Ann Coulter was pro-choice. Someone should look into this... -[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 12:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== First "Reference" ==

The first reference, "U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner called her one of America's top public intellectuals," has no source. Unless there's a source or a specific objection, I think this reference should be deleted. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:I added the refs [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:07, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::Perhaps I misunderstood the references---but where does he state that she's one of America's top public intellectuals? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:10, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::Having read the reference again, I think a couple improvements could be made. First, the reference should have something to do with the corresponding passage. The passage talks about her books, but the reference makes a claim about being called a top intellectual. That claim can be included in the main article someplace, but doesn't have relevance as a reference to her writings. Second, the reference, when placed in the article, should point to his book on the subject, rather than the appendix to the book. The reference doesn't make the fact any clearer. Finally, having read a summation of the book from Publisher's Weekly, it seems Posner was writing that the intellectuals of today have diminished from the intellectuals of the past. He then uses web hits as a qualification for intellectualism. That seems a weak criteria.
:::Overall, I think this reference should just be removed, as it doesn't enhance but instead detracts from the article. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::Valid points. The statement and references now stand alone and are not linked to her books. The statement now ''adds'' to the article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Thanks for the update. I still question whether he considers her one of America's top public intellectuals, or whether she's just another example of an American public intellectual, but w/o reading the book it's hard to know. But thank you for the updated writing! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:45, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Opinion ==

The following paragraph needs some work:
:<nowiki>Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by critics and liberals, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that [[liberal]]s can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref></nowiki>
I love Coulter's writing, but this paragraph includes a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. I wanted to rewrite it, but I wasn't really sure how without taking out most of the assertions. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:<nowiki>As an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and sometimes considered "offensive" <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref></nowiki>

:How's that, HelpJazz? Any better? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:25, 12 February 2008 (EST==

::Wow, I forgot about this post, heh. Yes, Feebas, I think that's much better, and I think it still gets the same message across without the editorializing. Thanks! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 12 February 2008 (EST)

==Feigning offence==
What is feign offence Andy? you mean that people are not actually offended?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:58, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Karajou, this is pathetic. Her critics are critics because they are actually offended. What makes you think they feign it? I am going to revert if you cant give a reason
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:And I will throw you off this website if you even dare to. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, I was under the impression I was dealing with an adult.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:44, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:The child is yourself, and we've had enough of your tantrums and your bad remarks directed against the sysops and Aschlafly here. If you want to contribute, fine; but your bad attitude is over with. If not, leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:47, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, I am not the one saying "I dare you! Then I'll show you!" Secondly, I dont give a sweet damn what Coutler says however she does offend and noone "feigns it" and you should back this up if this is actually meant to be "trustworthy"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:With respect, he has raised an important point. I believe that at least some of Coulter's critics have been offended by her comments, particular those who they are directed at. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:16, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:: It's easy to see why Coulter's critics would feign offense, in their attempt to score political points. It's not so easy to see why they would be genuinely offended. Are they equally offended by similar jokes/comments by [[liberals]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Hm. AdenJ is currently... "away", but I just saw this in the Recent Changes. I can understand why liberals would be genuinely offended by her remarks:
:::*"Liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
:::**Right. This of course does not offend liberals in the slightest...
:::*"Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly."
:::**See above; I guess no liberal will be offended by that. No sir...
:::*"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned."
:::**Of course, women will only ''feign'' being offended by this. They know that they are incapable of understanding how money is earned! Sure!
:::And how about some of her book titles?
:::*Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (2003)
:::*Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (2004)
:::*How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2005)
:::*If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans (2007)
:::Are you seriously claiming that not one of these lines is going to genuinely offend anybody? If anybody said that conservatives are lying traitors who are driven by Satan and should not be allowed to vote because they're all anti-American idiots, I'm very sure that conservatives would be offended. Maybe not you, but others will be. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, [[liberals]] typically don't even admit they are "liberals", further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:39, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Huh. I... see. Thanks for clarifying this quite... unique view of liberals. [frowns] --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ??? Your statement is incoherent. Are pretending that [[liberals]] don't deny they are [[liberals]]? Check out the comments of [[Hillary Clinton]] and scores of posters here, perhaps including yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::??? Are you saying that I'm a liberal? What do you base this on? Your [[political identification bias]], maybe? I certainly didn't give you any hint of my political affiliation other than disagreeing with you. Classic case, I would say.
:::::::It's typical conservative style to label any posting as "incoherent", and if there was such an article here, I would add it as the new number 1 entry. ;)
:::::::If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words and simply cite a webcomic: "Dude, see this huge sweat-drop? It means I'm totally grossed out." - Oh, and don't pretend to be offended by this post. I know you'd just be feigning it to score points in this discussion, just like you know that no liberal is genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks.
:::::::But hey, your site, your wikiality. If you want to claim that no liberal is offended by being called a lying traitor, then you can obviously do so. [shrug] I at first assumed that this was some odd misunderstanding, but your post clarified the position to the degree that I know that my best move is to disengage. Which I tried to do, before you called my post "incoherent". Let's hope that this second attempt will be more fruitful. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:58, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

* [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]: Comments like ''If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words'' are out of place here. Kindly confine your comments to discussion of how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:06, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::So my comparably tame remark is a personal remark, but nobody will be genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks? What if I claimed that you and Aschlafly are only feigning it to silence me? How would you prove me wrong?
::Also, please note that I only made that remark after Aschlafly labeled my post "incoherent", which I found quite insulting. Or how about Aschlafly implicitly labeling me as a liberal, based on nothing other than him disagreeing with me? I accept your warning (and I already said that I was retreating and disengaging, once implicitly and once explicitly), but I must protest against the fact that ''only I'' receive one. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 11:13, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

I had written an earlier version which I though was fairly neutral (see a section above, HelpJazz condoned it). But in light of the view that... "''No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, [[liberals]] typically don't even admit they are "liberals", further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.''" ...I think I'll just step away. I... don't understand how it can be claimed that one would not be offended by such comments as JBrown listed, I certainly would be (perhaps, I have a slightly different interpretation of "offense"?). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: Some liberals claim they are offended by a prayer that simply thanks God. Does you think that really offends them? I don't. Claiming offense is an effective way to demand censorship, or try to ostracize someone and drive her off television. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::Well, no, I don't think so either. A prayer thanking God does not insult, criticize or even address the "offended" party, so I think you're quite right when you say liberals are feigning offense in such a case. However, the comments listed above directly attack liberals, so I would not be surprised if there was in fact some genuine offense taken. Wouldn't you be at all offended if someone said such things about you? ''"traitors or idiots", "lie constantly", "motivated by Stalin"...'' If not, I'll assume that I am understanding "offense" differently.

::Now I'm not saying she's wrong, or that she should have to censor herself at all, but is it really that unbelievable that someone could be offended by such comments? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Not a big fan (remark) ==

''Frankly, I don't see why Ann Coulter's contempt for the First Amendment is being reverted''

"Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." University of Florida speech; October 20, 2005 http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051021coulter.php

Why is this being reverted? She said it, it's factual, informative, and goes to the heart of who she is. The Bill of Rights is an amazing pillar of American Freedom. Conservapedia, and a million other sources of information might not even exist without it. If she has such contempt for the Constitution of the United States, why not say so? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 11:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

: The links did not work; no way to see the information is accurate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:12, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know about the links, I'm no HTML expert, but this URL will get you there. http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051021coulter.php [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 11:25, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Thanks, I was able to figure out how to make the link work. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 12:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

: The article does not say that she has contempt for the 1A, or explain the context for the quote. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:45, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

: Fair enough. She said she is not a big fan of the First Amendment. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 12:48, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::You'd hang someone for saying she is 'not a big fan of ' something? She may be a medium fan, or no fan at all. The quote is so vague that it does not merit inclusion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:01, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, I would, especially because: 1. We are not talking about being "a big fan" of some silly movie here, we are talking about the Bill of Rights. 2. The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of American Freedom and should never be taken lightly especially by those who profess to be protecting American Freedom. 3. Any prominent liberal who said this would be burned alive in this forum. 4. My attempts to include the context for Obama's not wearing a flag pin were reverted. 5. Truth is truth and fairness is fairness, and including or excluding certain facts in order to bias an article is deceit whether commited by a conservative or a liberal. John 8:32 [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 13:18, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Coulter's point is obvious: she's not a "big fan" of how the First Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts. Coulter is not attacking the Bill of Rights as originally understood in any way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:22, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::::{{quotebox|She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment. "They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them." She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." }}

::::Where does she talk about the courts? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:29, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Where does she talk about the courts? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 13:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Here is the (partial) context of the remark:

:She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.

:"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."

:She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

The question, obviously, is what she meant by this. She '''might''' have meant that she wants to suppress the speech of everyone who contradicts her; but based on my reading of 3 of her books I find that impossible to believe.

It's more likely that she was making a satirical point. We could email her for a clarification, if necessary, but what she probably means is that she opposes the abuse of the First Amendment.

Writers, be careful not to make ideological edits; i.e., do not add anything to an article which promotes your ideology in an illegitimate way, such as [[out of context]] quotation or [[quote mining]]. Don't copy the strategy of ''[[Bushisms]]'', the anti-George Bush book which collects as many "damaging quotes" as possible with the aim of making him look stupid.

You may, of course, report truthfully that '''a certain published author''' or other prominent person made an argument about Ann Coulter, based on a 10-word quotation from a lengthy speech. That's not an ideological edit; that's reporting someone's viewpoint.

In general, avoid unattributed views, implications, and insinuations. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:23, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

==Is she Christian?==

I mean, does she consider herself Christian? Because as one, it seems to me that none of her actions ever revolve around philosophies like, "judge lest not ye be judged", or "turn the other cheek", which are fundamental teachings of Christ (as in, '''Christ'''ian). I can't believe that she says any of this except to get a rise out of people, but then why is she so...egrandized in this article? Why would we compare her to Condoleeza Rice, when this is someone who just talks, and talks of horrible things? She doesn't actually do anything! She just takes Nazi quotes and replaces "Juden" with "liberal" and presto, idiocy. Why isn't this someone who we're trying to amputate from the conservative movement, why is this someone we regard highly and compare to the '''mother''' of this site's founder? IS THIS WHAT THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT? [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 17:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Bobby Jindal

2008-09-10T05:14:53Z

OtherSide:

==Name concerns==
In the interest of pre-empting any kind of finger-pointing over consistency issues, I believe it is absolutely necessary to include information about WHY he hasn't legally changed his name. There are all kinds of statements in the [[Barack Obama]] article which try to illustrate some percieved Muslim agenda because he hasn't changed his Afro-arabic name to something more...Anglo-Saxon. Now, before you try to tell me that he is known as "Bobby": Aren't there plenty enough examples of Obama going by "Barry" for his high-school and some portion of his college days? I mean, come on. To say that Jindal gets a check-mark off the "'weird' religion's Manchurian candidate watchlist" but Obama doesn't is patently unfair, and not in line with being trustworthy or encyclopedic. Either changes must be made to this article, or to Obama's article. Thank you. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 10:19, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: Barack Obama has not been known as "Barry" for at least 20 years, and perhaps never.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:42, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:: [http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/Barry-Obama-sm.jpg] Here's an image from his yearbook. Regardless, even if you believe this image is doctored, liberal propaganda, or a product of the Minitrue, why the double standard? Why is it okay for one man not to ''legally'' change his name (which is the precise accusation leveled against Obama on his article), while another gets blasted for it? While the job Obama's seeking surely requires much more serious scrutiny of the candidates running, why is it that a man must be condemned because his name sounds kinda' sorta' reminiscent of something familiar to people we're engaged in conflicts with? Is it only Muslim names that ensure the candidate is a sleeper agent of terrorists? I do not seek any kind of politically-motivated changes to these articles, only consistency-promoting ones. If we're going to do this to Obama and not others, then why not do it to Asian senators? Following the logic employed here, shouldn't ''they'' have known to change their names after Pearl Harbor, or the Boxer Rebellions? Why doesn't this site embrace the individualism of a man who didn't hide behind a safe, sunshiny name like "John Smith" merely to get elected? Shouldn't that be rewarded in America? I know you're a reasonable man, and I know you'll give me a reasonable answer. Thank you.[[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 18:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Wow. I guess that fortune cookie of easily-disproven garbage is all I get from a coward. Great. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 01:14, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-08-31T23:51:29Z

OtherSide:

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Bobby Jindal

2008-08-31T22:28:08Z

OtherSide:

==Name concerns==
In the interest of pre-empting any kind of finger-pointing over consistency issues, I believe it is absolutely necessary to include information about WHY he hasn't legally changed his name. There are all kinds of statements in the [[Barack Obama]] article which try to illustrate some percieved Muslim agenda because he hasn't changed his Afro-arabic name to something more...Anglo-Saxon. Now, before you try to tell me that he is known as "Bobby": Aren't there plenty enough examples of Obama going by "Barry" for his high-school and some portion of his college days? I mean, come on. To say that Jindal gets a check-mark off the "'weird' religion's Manchurian candidate watchlist" but Obama doesn't is patently unfair, and not in line with being trustworthy or encyclopedic. Either changes must be made to this article, or to Obama's article. Thank you. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 10:19, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: Barack Obama has not been known as "Barry" for at least 20 years, and perhaps never.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:42, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:: [http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/Barry-Obama-sm.jpg] Here's an image from his yearbook. Regardless, even if you believe this image is doctored, liberal propaganda, or a product of the Minitrue, why the double standard? Why is it okay for one man not to ''legally'' change his name (which is the precise accusation leveled against Obama on his article), while another gets blasted for it? While the job Obama's seeking surely requires much more serious scrutiny of the candidates running, why is it that a man must be condemned because his name sounds kinda' sorta' reminiscent of something familiar to people we're engaged in conflicts with? Is it only Muslim names that ensure the candidate is a sleeper agent of terrorists? I do not seek any kind of politically-motivated changes to these articles, only consistency-promoting ones. If we're going to do this to Obama and not others, then why not do it to Asian senators? Following the logic employed here, shouldn't ''they'' have known to change their names after Pearl Harbor, or the Boxer Rebellions? Why doesn't this site embrace the individualism of a man who didn't hide behind a safe, sunshiny name like "John Smith" merely to get elected? Shouldn't that be rewarded in America? I know you're a reasonably man, and I know you'll give me a reasonable answer. Thank you.[[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 18:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Bobby Jindal

2008-08-31T14:19:05Z

OtherSide: New page: ==Name concerns== In the interest of pre-empting any kind of finger-pointing over consistency issues, I believe it is absolutely necessary to include information about WHY he hasn't legall...