Difference between revisions of "Debate:If Obama Was Conservative"
m (Cat) |
(follow-up question) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Yes== | ==Yes== | ||
The truth doesn't change if someone is conservative or liberal. If BHO was a conservative that would be great, but the fact is that there are so many half-truths and inconsistencies about his life that conservative voters wouldn't be fooled by his rhetoric. Of course if the man were a conservative he wouldn't have been friends with a terrorist like Bill Ayers, he wouldn't have attended a black nationalist church, and he wouldn't have praised a Palestinian thug like Khaledi. The man's an empty suit with dangerous connections and no sane Republican would vote for him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 13:40, 7 December 2008 (EST) | The truth doesn't change if someone is conservative or liberal. If BHO was a conservative that would be great, but the fact is that there are so many half-truths and inconsistencies about his life that conservative voters wouldn't be fooled by his rhetoric. Of course if the man were a conservative he wouldn't have been friends with a terrorist like Bill Ayers, he wouldn't have attended a black nationalist church, and he wouldn't have praised a Palestinian thug like Khaledi. The man's an empty suit with dangerous connections and no sane Republican would vote for him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 13:40, 7 December 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Thank you for your point. And I would tend to agree with you - the truth does not change depending on one's ideology. However it would also seem to me that, if Obama had been a conservative and the Republican candidate, liberals and Democrat supporters would have been casting suspicion on some areas of his life. It is only natural after all to try and undermine the other candidate to highlight your candidate - both sides do it every election year. What I'm saying is, if Obama was the Republican nominee, and a liberal newspaper started claiming that Obama had been involved with suspicious people in the past, and provided apparent proof of this, would Conservapedia repeat the claim, or not? [[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 17:07, 7 December 2008 (EST) | ||
==No== | ==No== | ||
[[Category:Conservapedia debates]] | [[Category:Conservapedia debates]] | ||
Revision as of 22:07, December 7, 2008
If Barack Obama held socially and economically conservative views, and won the Presidency as the Republican candidate, but everything else in his life was the same, would the Barack Obama article raise the same points it does here?
I'm just interested to see what people think, that's all. I'm not trying to create an argument and if that does happen, I will delete this page. Thank you.
Yes
The truth doesn't change if someone is conservative or liberal. If BHO was a conservative that would be great, but the fact is that there are so many half-truths and inconsistencies about his life that conservative voters wouldn't be fooled by his rhetoric. Of course if the man were a conservative he wouldn't have been friends with a terrorist like Bill Ayers, he wouldn't have attended a black nationalist church, and he wouldn't have praised a Palestinian thug like Khaledi. The man's an empty suit with dangerous connections and no sane Republican would vote for him. QWest 13:40, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Thank you for your point. And I would tend to agree with you - the truth does not change depending on one's ideology. However it would also seem to me that, if Obama had been a conservative and the Republican candidate, liberals and Democrat supporters would have been casting suspicion on some areas of his life. It is only natural after all to try and undermine the other candidate to highlight your candidate - both sides do it every election year. What I'm saying is, if Obama was the Republican nominee, and a liberal newspaper started claiming that Obama had been involved with suspicious people in the past, and provided apparent proof of this, would Conservapedia repeat the claim, or not? AGrath 17:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
