Changes

:*-World Net Daily[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73040 44]

:*-World Net Daily[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73040 44]

:Obama even felt enough heat on the issue to address the Chicago Tribune about it directly with his website FightTheSmears.[http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/obama-answers-t.html 45][http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/15/wildaccusations.html 46]

:Obama even felt enough heat on the issue to address the Chicago Tribune about it directly with his website FightTheSmears.[http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/obama-answers-t.html 45][http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/15/wildaccusations.html 46]

That is not even including those like John McCain[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/115563.php 47], Sarah Palin[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/10/20/palin-obamas-abortion-stance-is-so-extreme.aspx 48], and the National Organization of Women (Clinton supporters)[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402980.html 49] who accused Obama of it but did not specifically use the word 'infanticide'.

:That is not even including those like John McCain[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/115563.php 47], Sarah Palin[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/10/20/palin-obamas-abortion-stance-is-so-extreme.aspx 48], and the National Organization of Women (Clinton supporters)[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402980.html 49] who accused Obama of it but did not specifically use the word 'infanticide'.

:Therefore, if you want to consider me discredited for using the word 'infanticide' in reference to Obama, I consider myself in good company, and find no problem with having done so, since I was merely following precedent in using a common term to refer to his voting record that has been frequently applied to him in the media and by national figures. As far as I am concerned, it is you who have long since been discredited for suggesting opposition to infanticide does not matter and is a fringe view, while considering discredited many major news organizations in the U.S.

:Therefore, if you want to consider me discredited for using the word 'infanticide' in reference to Obama, I consider myself in good company, and find no problem with having done so, since I was merely following precedent in using a common term to refer to his voting record that has been frequently applied to him in the media and by national figures. As far as I am concerned, it is you who have long since been discredited for suggesting opposition to infanticide does not matter and is a fringe view, while considering discredited many major news organizations in the U.S.

--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 15:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 15:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:P.S. It should further be pointed out that there is ALREADY a Wikipedia article addressing Jill Stanek's claims of Obama's infanticide (and yes, it uses that term).[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stanek#Obama_infanticide_accusations50]  

:P.S. It should further be pointed out that there is ALREADY a Wikipedia article addressing Jill Stanek's claims of Obama's infanticide (and yes, it uses that term).[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stanek#Obama_infanticide_accusations50]  

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332505331&oldid=332504982 Source 32'

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332505331&oldid=332504982 Source 32]

'''33 - 2009, 12/18, 10:04:''' I noticed DD2K's new thread and responded to his comment in the NPOV section, pointing out that, given my newest edit, there was considerable evidence of the term 'Infanticide' having been used in relation to Obama by the mainstream press, and that this was not a partisan issue. I emphasized I was not Republican (I'm actually solidly 3rd party and support the Pro-Life Democrats, DFLA, more than any Republicans) and that my side comments criticizing Democrats were intended as fairness to ensure blame was not overlooked for either side as necessary. As an aside, I criticized McCain's similarity to Bush in the process.

'''33 - 2009, 12/18, 10:04:''' I noticed DD2K's new thread and responded to his comment in the NPOV section, pointing out that, given my newest edit, there was considerable evidence of the term 'Infanticide' having been used in relation to Obama by the mainstream press, and that this was not a partisan issue. I emphasized I was not Republican (I'm actually solidly 3rd party and support the Pro-Life Democrats, DFLA, more than any Republicans) and that my side comments criticizing Democrats were intended as fairness to ensure blame was not overlooked for either side as necessary. As an aside, I criticized McCain's similarity to Bush in the process.

:McCain and company weren't the ones pushing this stuff. McCain was too busy buddying up to George W. and trying to look the part of Mr. National Security, the perfect 'W' predecessor.

:McCain and company weren't the ones pushing this stuff. McCain was too busy buddying up to George W. and trying to look the part of Mr. National Security, the perfect 'W' predecessor.

And strong as the Republican presence in Congress was, they did not have filibuster power like the Democrats do now. Meaning some Democrats were involved too, probably ones not held accountable either. You want to make this a partisan issue even though I'm not a Republican. I just don't like it when people like you want to hold one side accountable and not the other. I'm all for criticizing Bush and the Republicans, I just wish you'd cut the hypocrisy and look at your side too.

 

--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 16:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 33

:And strong as the Republican presence in Congress was, they did not have filibuster power like the Democrats do now. Meaning some Democrats were involved too, probably ones not held accountable either. You want to make this a partisan issue even though I'm not a Republican. I just don't like it when people like you want to hold one side accountable and not the other. I'm all for criticizing Bush and the Republicans, I just wish you'd cut the hypocrisy and look at your side too.

:--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 16:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332506482#Absurd_propaganda Source 33]

'''34 - 2009, 12/18, 10:05:''' Frank probably hadn't noticed my new sources yet, and continued to obliviously carry on in the Absurd Propaganda thread, seemingly unaware that I'd just decisively shown this was not the fringe issue Tarc and DD2K wanted to portray it, but one which had received serious media scrutiny in the past. Looking back, I realize how objective and reasonable he appeared in what was a very heated discussion.

'''34 - 2009, 12/18, 10:05:''' Frank probably hadn't noticed my new sources yet, and continued to obliviously carry on in the Absurd Propaganda thread, seemingly unaware that I'd just decisively shown this was not the fringe issue Tarc and DD2K wanted to portray it, but one which had received serious media scrutiny in the past. Looking back, I realize how objective and reasonable he appeared in what was a very heated discussion.

:You are intermingling coverage of the charges with advocacy of the charges, which I'm sorry to say is a rather intellectually dishonest approach to the matter. Half of that list consists of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS unreliable sources], then a pair of opinion pieces by Senators, and the rest a handful of reliable sources. The CBS citation for example notes "Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide". That doesn't give weight or credence to the allegations, it simply reports that political opponents have said it, as does the passage in Stanek's wiki-article. No in-depth analysis or coverage, because it is a trivial and dismissible charge, much as "baby killer" would be in reference to Bush in regards to the Iraq invasion.

:You are intermingling coverage of the charges with advocacy of the charges, which I'm sorry to say is a rather intellectually dishonest approach to the matter. Half of that list consists of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS unreliable sources], then a pair of opinion pieces by Senators, and the rest a handful of reliable sources. The CBS citation for example notes "Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide". That doesn't give weight or credence to the allegations, it simply reports that political opponents have said it, as does the passage in Stanek's wiki-article. No in-depth analysis or coverage, because it is a trivial and dismissible charge, much as "baby killer" would be in reference to Bush in regards to the Iraq invasion.

Fightthesmears.com was setup for the precise purpose of shooting down conspiracy-tinged idiocy such as this. This is why we have a separate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories] article to cover the Birthers and there Certifi-gate campaign; it has no real bearing on the biographical article of Obama, as it is a criticism so far out of the mainstream as to be almost laughable. I'm sorry that a favored cause of yours...induced abortion == murder...isn't gaining the traction that you'd like it to. But you're in the wrong place in attempting to fight that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BATTLE battle]. I think that is about my last word on this subject, as it is beginning to get circular. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarc Tarc] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarc talk]) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332510930&oldid=332508212 Source 35a]

 

:Fightthesmears.com was setup for the precise purpose of shooting down conspiracy-tinged idiocy such as this. This is why we have a separate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories] article to cover the Birthers and there Certifi-gate campaign; it has no real bearing on the biographical article of Obama, as it is a criticism so far out of the mainstream as to be almost laughable. I'm sorry that a favored cause of yours...induced abortion == murder...isn't gaining the traction that you'd like it to. But you're in the wrong place in attempting to fight that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BATTLE battle]. I think that is about my last word on this subject, as it is beginning to get circular. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarc Tarc] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarc talk]) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332510930&oldid=332508212 Source 35a]

At 10:54, Tarc made another edit to fix some minor typos he'd made. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332515497&oldid=332513906 Source 35b]

At 10:54, Tarc made another edit to fix some minor typos he'd made. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332515497&oldid=332513906 Source 35b]

Abrazame also began name-calling in the Absurd Propaganda thread and attacking the sources as propaganda.

Abrazame also began name-calling in the Absurd Propaganda thread and attacking the sources as propaganda.

Frank, nobody's expected to read all the links from an ideologue pest hopping from thread to thread pushing the same strident issue like this, but Moynihan—who died in 2001—obviously did not comment on Obama. Moynihan probably never heard of Obama. This editor is simply reaching back into history to note that Moynihan made a general characterization about partial-birth abortion. When a relatively new user dredges up all his favorite comments about abortion even when they're unrelated to the subject of this article, simply to push a point about abortion, he shouldn't be allowed to post his treatise and pursue it all over the page, he should be directed to the abortion article. This is a real and difficult issue, and I respect what I presume is the editor's position on the issue, but it is clear that it is not one with particular relevance to the biography of Barack Obama. Parading issues like this one through BLPs and their talk pages is editorially irresponsible campaigning. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the concept of consensus. Consensus is not about a gang (or a gang of one) to win the exclusion of relevant, salient, properly-weighted, balanced, encyclopedic and contextual facts, in favor of some mistaken POV, nor is it about allowing activists to trot out patently unacceptable, irrelevant propaganda in an effort to draw smeary connections to an individual that aren't really there and create a controversy where there isn't one. Moynihan's non-Obama-related quote is repeated in another of his refs, which he erroneously calls "Time Magazine's Real Clear Politics" but which in fact is an opinion piece by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan Pat Buchanan]; the other ref there is an opinion piece by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh's] little brother. As if somebody even has to click on any of the refs when the final one is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Net_Daily World Net Daily]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Abrazame&action=edit&redlink=1 Abrazame] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abrazame talk]) 17:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 38

:Frank, nobody's expected to read all the links from an ideologue pest hopping from thread to thread pushing the same strident issue like this, but Moynihan—who died in 2001—obviously did not comment on Obama. Moynihan probably never heard of Obama. This editor is simply reaching back into history to note that Moynihan made a general characterization about partial-birth abortion. When a relatively new user dredges up all his favorite comments about abortion even when they're unrelated to the subject of this article, simply to push a point about abortion, he shouldn't be allowed to post his treatise and pursue it all over the page, he should be directed to the abortion article. This is a real and difficult issue, and I respect what I presume is the editor's position on the issue, but it is clear that it is not one with particular relevance to the biography of Barack Obama. Parading issues like this one through BLPs and their talk pages is editorially irresponsible campaigning. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the concept of consensus. Consensus is not about a gang (or a gang of one) to win the exclusion of relevant, salient, properly-weighted, balanced, encyclopedic and contextual facts, in favor of some mistaken POV, nor is it about allowing activists to trot out patently unacceptable, irrelevant propaganda in an effort to draw smeary connections to an individual that aren't really there and create a controversy where there isn't one. Moynihan's non-Obama-related quote is repeated in another of his refs, which he erroneously calls "Time Magazine's Real Clear Politics" but which in fact is an opinion piece by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan Pat Buchanan]; the other ref there is an opinion piece by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh's] little brother. As if somebody even has to click on any of the refs when the final one is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Net_Daily World Net Daily]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Abrazame&action=edit&redlink=1 Abrazame] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abrazame talk]) 17:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 38

== To Be Discussed Later When I Reach Them: ==

== To Be Discussed Later When I Reach Them: ==