Difference between revisions of "Talk:Religion of Barack Obama"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(a suggestion?) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Why are we repeating liberal falsehoods of Newsweek here??? Just a quick glance shows misuse of the word "secular" and the implausible claim that Obama's biological father was an atheist, for starters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 25 February 2009 (EST) | Why are we repeating liberal falsehoods of Newsweek here??? Just a quick glance shows misuse of the word "secular" and the implausible claim that Obama's biological father was an atheist, for starters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 25 February 2009 (EST) | ||
:Taking a step back, may I suggest that with a proper debunking of their falsehoods, we can show that they don't have much of an argument at all? It's important to not give these falsehoods any sense of validity, but I think such analysis can be done successfully and this would be a strength to the article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:07, 25 February 2009 (EST) | :Taking a step back, may I suggest that with a proper debunking of their falsehoods, we can show that they don't have much of an argument at all? It's important to not give these falsehoods any sense of validity, but I think such analysis can be done successfully and this would be a strength to the article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:07, 25 February 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The items that I took out were opinions and had no business in the article. I am undoing your change. This article should be trustworthy nad not filled with snark. --[[User: kschroe|Kurt Schroeder]] 3:59, 25 February 2009 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 22:00, February 25, 2009
Why are we repeating liberal falsehoods of Newsweek here??? Just a quick glance shows misuse of the word "secular" and the implausible claim that Obama's biological father was an atheist, for starters.--Andy Schlafly 11:55, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Taking a step back, may I suggest that with a proper debunking of their falsehoods, we can show that they don't have much of an argument at all? It's important to not give these falsehoods any sense of validity, but I think such analysis can be done successfully and this would be a strength to the article. -Foxtrot 12:07, 25 February 2009 (EST)
The items that I took out were opinions and had no business in the article. I am undoing your change. This article should be trustworthy nad not filled with snark. --Kurt Schroeder 3:59, 25 February 2009 (CST)