SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,134
edits
Changes
Talk:Barack Hussein Obama (view source)
Revision as of 13:14, December 30, 2009
, 13:14, December 30, 2009→Extensive problems
:Just like, Jacob, all of the nonsense that has been brought up about Obama? If you hadn't noticed, it's all been dealt with, or, if I may use your language, has been brought up and refuted. Now stop wasting peoples time. He's the president. He will be for another three years (at least). And it doesn't matter how many times Orly Taitz makes an idiot out of herself, your dream of an election reversal will not happen. --[[User:DrewDice|DrewDice]] 18:30, 23 December 2009 (EST)
:Just like, Jacob, all of the nonsense that has been brought up about Obama? If you hadn't noticed, it's all been dealt with, or, if I may use your language, has been brought up and refuted. Now stop wasting peoples time. He's the president. He will be for another three years (at least). And it doesn't matter how many times Orly Taitz makes an idiot out of herself, your dream of an election reversal will not happen. --[[User:DrewDice|DrewDice]] 18:30, 23 December 2009 (EST)
::Drew, you can be insulting and rude, and get blocked for it, or you can continue to edit constructively (as I notice you have, mostly, and I commend you for it). Don't insert yourself into discussions like this - I notice that your user page USED to say, "Hope I can just edit and not argue," but then you removed that. I hope it's not because you changed your mind about arguing. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:39, 24 December 2009 (EST)
::Drew, you can be insulting and rude, and get blocked for it, or you can continue to edit constructively (as I notice you have, mostly, and I commend you for it). Don't insert yourself into discussions like this - I notice that your user page USED to say, "Hope I can just edit and not argue," but then you removed that. I hope it's not because you changed your mind about arguing. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:39, 24 December 2009 (EST)
:::I'm going to have to agree with ShawnMost and TheTrustWorthyEditor. This article gives way too much weight to minority opinions. Look, I just came from a conversation on Wikipedia where the liberal bias achieved the same thing conservative bias is achieving here - an inability to objectively put in material that should be added, and to make necessary changes because of misconstruing the other person's viewpoint.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Coverage_of_Controversies.3F]
:::I am as big a critic of Obama's as anyone - just google Obama Jzyehoshua if you don't believe me - my writing against his policy of live birth abortion as well of my mentions of his Chicago politics is all over the web. However, they are right. This article is putting in the introduction stuff about him using hypnosis techniques and a not particularly relevant quote about the military. That's hardly stuff that's well-sourced enough to be anything but a fringe opinion - sorry. At least by Wikipedia standards, and I'd assume you guys do it the same way here, the standard of prominence is sourcing, and I doubt you're going to find major news outlets discussing either of those.
:::On the other hand, there are major criticisms of Obama that have hit the news such as his associations, controversy with live birth abortion, and the fact that he knocked off his first 4 political opponents by challenging their ballot signatures, and asked the leading Democrat state senator, Emil Jones, to make him a U.S. Senator. Jones then appointed him head over numerous key pieces of legislation that he now points to as evidence of his competence. Anyway, I'll get into that in a separate section. Point is, there are major criticisms of him that have been addressed by major publications.
:::But if we give undue weight obviously to claims or material with little sourcing or press then Conservapedia will just be written off. People will never consider comparing it to Wikipedia except as a joke, and I don't think any of us here want that. If for nothing else than to see Conservapedia compete with Wikipedia as an objective possibility, I hope everyone here will listen to what I'm saying and try to objectify this article. Jz, --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 08:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)
== Most Important Controversy Not Mentioned - Partial Birth Abortion ==
== Most Important Controversy Not Mentioned - Partial Birth Abortion ==