Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)

The number of his gaffes. --MugiK 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)

First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example John McCain, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, the choice should be clear.

"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when George W. Bush became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --AlanS 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--RossC 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with truth not, (per Wikipedia), verifiability.

The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.

Philip J. Rayment 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Admin only?

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start taxing me! - Rod Weathers 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)

• Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see talk:Barack Obama --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive voting. But I see your point. - Rod Weathers 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)

How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. Bugler 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)Bugler 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Who are these Liberal administrators? HenryS 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Oh Henry, look and read. Bugler 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Great American Tradition

In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimSell (talk)