Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(move section to bottom and add my thoughts.)
m ("Open Marriage": fmt)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 127: Line 127:
 
The term "open marriage" is defined as one in which both partners are freely allowed to have romantic relations outside the marriage. The sources provided for the open marricomply aim only confirm what is widely known, Bill Clinton was a philanderer, and Hillary most likely tried to ignore the fact. This does not constitute an open marriage. Trying to add this content to the Bill Clinton article is a rather obvious response to Newt Gingrich's ex-wife's allegations against him, which I consider spurious and unworthy of this encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not the place for people to draw conclusions about other people's relationships based on hearsay evidence. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:43, 20 January 2012 (EST)
 
The term "open marriage" is defined as one in which both partners are freely allowed to have romantic relations outside the marriage. The sources provided for the open marricomply aim only confirm what is widely known, Bill Clinton was a philanderer, and Hillary most likely tried to ignore the fact. This does not constitute an open marriage. Trying to add this content to the Bill Clinton article is a rather obvious response to Newt Gingrich's ex-wife's allegations against him, which I consider spurious and unworthy of this encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not the place for people to draw conclusions about other people's relationships based on hearsay evidence. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:43, 20 January 2012 (EST)
 
:Absolutely agree.  This is just an attempted smear on Clinton because CP doesn't like her politic leanings.  As CP prides itself on not containing gossip, this is hypocrisy incarnate.  RobS you should be ashamed of yourself.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)
 
:Absolutely agree.  This is just an attempted smear on Clinton because CP doesn't like her politic leanings.  As CP prides itself on not containing gossip, this is hypocrisy incarnate.  RobS you should be ashamed of yourself.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)
 +
::The "open marriage" term appears in the 1992 ''American Spectator'' article, pay the subscription fee if you can't read it. Barbara Olsen also uses the term.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:04, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Revision as of 16:05, 20 January 2012

Whoever selected the picture seems to have deliberately tried to find an unattractive one. Sorry, but conservative bias is just as bad as liberal bias.

I disagree. This is '"Conservapedia" and I don't mind a conservative bias. I'm tired of the liberal bias everywhere else and liberals trying to get rid of anything they don't agree with. I'm annoyed at seeing Hillary's smiling, happy face on all the other sites and I'm happy to see this picture. Crocoitetalk 13:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know why bias (any bias) is bad in the first place? Becuase it makes us ignorant to the true state of the world. The cost of saying that "in my bias, slavery, the holocaust, and the murder and marginalization of the american indians never happened" is you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Has hillary made mistakes? sure! We all have. But no one's life is doomed to only their mistakes and failures, no matter how much that's all we care to see.

Bias, no matter where it comes from, is inevitable. We're all humans, we all have ideas, we can't help but convey at least a little of our ideas through what we do. So we may as well give up, for the most part, on trying to be impartial, because it's not really going to work anyway. As for ignorance, a person needs to be exposed to alot of bias before they can gain a good idea of the "true state of the world." --User:StevenM 11:52 Oct 10 2007

Did someone suggest that Hillary could be anything other than unattractive? LOL. The picture here is better than fair. --Bob Arctor 22:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying so hard not to make a crude joke about that. MountainDew 22:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh? The criticism of Hillary Clinton consists entirely of a poll? Kolbe 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Most people it seems are made or broken based on their polls, even if the people polled do not understand the questions they are being polled on. TheComputerWizard


Presidential Campaign 2008

I think what she meant that no mother had been a MAJOR candidate for president. The correction is basically of very minor importance.Alloco1 19:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

RObS entire new addition regarding Hillary's possible "clinical condition" should be removed as gossip at best. The cited reference is a conservative website that references a book written by someone with no medical training, and yet we are to accept her as an authority on Hillary's possible mental illness? This is just a baseless smear. QNA 12:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Baseless smear? Since when do smears need a base? It has been well documented, for instance, what an idiot George W. Bush is, without foundation. For example, Google Bush+idiot brings up 1,590,000 hits. [1] RobS 14:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

It may be true that some people call people names but reputable encyclopedias do not. The Wikipedia entry on George W. Bush does not call him an idiot and does not offer anyones psycho-analysis of his character. I may not like it that the entire article is devoted to creating a negative perception of Hillary Clinton but at least most of it is seems factual. If you want to be taken seriously at all, you should remove paragraph.Wismike

Oh really? What's this? Bush on the Couch and this Addiction, Brain Damage and the President or this Slime Mold Beetle named for Bush [2] All this found its way into the GW mainspace. RobS 17:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

The articles that you are citing are not part of the article on George W. Bush in Wikipedia. The "Bush on the Couch" article describes a book by that name and has a section that presents pro and con criticism of that book. The other articles aren't part of Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia has a whole section of books about George Bush and Hillary Clinton and divides them neatly into pro and con categories. Wismike

Go into the histories and you will find them. And you will also find a string of corpses from RfC's and Community banning of editors who protested that garbage for as long it stood. Sure, the trash was taken out after people who protested were banned for protesting it. That is the Wikiopedia way. And frrankly, at this point I don't care. It did it's damage when Bush still had better poll numbers, so obviously kicking the old boy when he's down seems cruel, doesn't it? Timing, is everything. RobS 17:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I find it interesting that RobS justifies smearing Clinton in this article on the basis of smears against George Bush he alleges to have found on the internet at large. Sounds like he's got a small chip on his shoulder that is having a negative affect on his editorial policies. NitramNos 13:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I didn't say it, it's a reputable citation. RobS 14:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

The list of "intriguing" symptoms Buchanan purported to include in her endnotes -- specifically endnote 74, Chapter 1 -- appears to be missing from the book entirely. Buchanan does not reference her study of "narcissistic personality style" elsewhere in the book.

Additionally, Fox and MSNBC failed to identify Buchanan as a senior adviser for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO). Buchanan's biography on the back of the book's dust jacket also fails to note her role as an adviser for Tancredo's campaign. The back cover includes a note of praise from Tancredo.

Human Events and Regnery Publishing are both subsidiaries of Eagle Publishing, a "leading conservative publishing company."

Recommend

Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians - Myk 02:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

A genuine classic

For you serious students of politics, and others who worship at the alter of public opinion polls, this Poll is a classic in the genre of public opinion molding and shaping. You just gotta love the choices given respondents,

  • Very corrupt
  • Somewhat corrupt
  • Not very corrupt
  • Not at all corrupt

Can we suppose the key idea here must be "corrupt"? and what influence do you suppose the wording may have had on the findings of the poll? RobS 13:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

For those who dislike this woman

I have a funny picture i would like to share with you all (espically those who dont like her): funny pic --Will N. 12:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Hah. We can all find hilarious photoshoppings on the internet. We should probably also not try and look for the worst pictures of someone for their article - not too bad here, but the Al Gore article - eugh. --Wikinterpretertalk?

Hillary

Senator Clinton is the best Democratic candidate for President in the upcoming election.


Past both biases. You can't just insert opinion pieces into a "factual" article. If you want to be "conservative" in your writing, then get rid of the political/ideological opinion. This is ridiculous for a website that presupposes itself to be more factual than wikipedia.

Her Friend, Dick Morris?

orly? Aziraphale 13:53, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Dick was always more Bill's friend that Hillary's...but the truth is, for the first several years, until Morris wised-up, they were indeed calling each other friends. Now I think it safe to say he detests everything about her, while still liking Bill. I am missing the reference. Help! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:03, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
I can't find any ref that he gets along with either of them, or has for years. As far as I can tell, they fell out years ago and Morris now makes a tidy living crapping all over the Clintons. And before anybody says it, I really don't CARE about the Clintons being pooped on, I just was curious if there was any reason to characterize Morris as anything other than a political enemy of Clinton at this point? Aziraphale 15:07, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so we've talked about "her friend" being inaccurate here on the talk page, as is suggested at the top of the article. What's the next step? I don't want to overwhelm the page with suggestions that could get lost in a shuffle... Aziraphale 10:59, 20 September 2007 (EDT) <-shut up and deal...

Corrections for this article

Well, for some reason I can't edit the article myself. However, I am Hillary Clinton. Your article characterizes me as a conspiracy theorist, which is unfair. I did not knowingly accept money from Peter Paul, but I have asked my staff to return the money which he supposedly donated if it is found that he is telling the truth. I do condemn the smear campaign on General Petraeus, which was clearly inappropriate. I am not an irresponsible cut-and-runner. I voted for and supported Barry Goldwater in 1964, though today I consider myself a moderate. I request that Conservapedia correct my article as it is rather offensive to me at the moment. HClinton 20:14, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Would you be willing to answer the question Ann Coulter posed:
"How about having Tim Russert ask Hillary if she believes the New Testament is the perfection of the Old Testament? She claims to be a Christian. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.[1]
  1. Human Events, October 31, 2007.

Rob, I don't see how an Ann Coulter quote you've dragged up is relevant to HClinton's suggestions. If you're curious, I would suggest posing such questions on her talk page instead. The talk pages for articles at Conservapedia, however, should remain on topic as much as possible. Feebasfactor 10:57, 10 November 2007 (EST)


  • I hate to be a "party pooper", but when the real Hillary Clinton brought over danish this morning, she told me she had never registered with Conservapedia. Imagine my shock and dismay upon her telling me that face-to-face! I was absolutely crushed! Accordingly I have removed the parodist user. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 11:33, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Fair enough... I suppose it's all irrelevant then. In any case, TK can always just ask her himself. XD Feebasfactor 13:56, 10 November 2007 (EST)

  • Indeed I did! And like the user pretending to be Hillary, the real Hillary objected to being called a "cut-and-runner as well. She wanted to make sure everyone at CP, indeed in the United States, knows that long before she supported the War in Iraq, she opposed it, and vocally, just as she has since deciding she was duped by that evil President George Bush, with his conspiracy to launch World War III.
  • And in speaking of conspiracies, she also asked that I let everyone know she isn't as conspiracy theorist at all, and resents those anti-feminists who portray her as such. Aside from the vast Right-Wing conspiracy out to smear her and her husband and the massive conspiracy of George W. Bush and the Haliburton Corporation to publicly fund the Middle East oil grab, she does not generally subscribe to conspiracy theories at all.
  • She added she is happy to directly and plainly answer the questions of right-wing cabalist and smear merchant Ann Coulter, if only she would define what the meaning of the words "Christian" and "perfection" mean. She looks forward to an open dialog with Coulter and the American people!

--şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:43, 10 November 2007 (EST)

I don't see where it says she voted for Goldwater. She has always said she was a "Goldwater girl," and raised in a good Republican home. It wasn't until she went off to an Eastern elite college with a commie-dominated faculty and got mixed up with a lowlife scumbag that the prodigal child departed from the values her parents instilled in her as a girl. But there is such a thing as redemption; she can still make up for shame she brought to her parents by marrying that putz and find her Goldwater roots again. Rob Smith 16:14, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Easter elite college? Didn't bush go to Yale? Maestro 16:57, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Yes, but he didn't actually do any "thinking" while he was there. Rkstiner 19:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't think anyone really supports abortion, as it claims Hillary does a few times in this article. Can we maybe change that to "supports the right for women to have abortions"?

I think that sounds fair. Can I also raise a warning flag here - when you compare this page against Huckabee's, then H Clinton hasd a lot of controversies listed, but M Huckabee does not. This seems to be ludicrously unbalanced. Darkmind1970 20:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Accusations of Stolen Gifts

I do not see how this section of the article is relevant. It appears that the first family quickly realized its misunderstanding, and corrected it. Adg2011 21:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Any POV here?

ok, im kinda new to conservapedia, but I am just wondering. This article seems to have a lot of right-wing POV without instating the good things that Hilary Clinton did. If possible, can someone please list the good things about Hilary Clinton?

This is not Wikipedia. We don't give affirmative action to liberal nonsense. Relevancy is what matters and not catering to liberal tripe in order to give "balance". Conservative 20:41, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
So are you saying that Clinton's childhood, early years, career, time as wife of the Arkensas governor, and everything else about her is irrelevant as far as Conservapedia is concerned? Or are you saying that to say anything good about HC has to be an example of liberal bias? Daphnea 16:00, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

It's the classic cop out for CP.com We'll list all sorts of negatives for people on the wrong side of the political tracks for our tastes 'till the cows come home. Bu suggest that even one or two posiives be listed, and you're hit with som retarded come back insinuating that unlike wikipedia we do not have a liberal agenda. It's ignorance at work. Get used to it. Jros83 20:36, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Infobox

I tried using the President infobox for Senators, like at Joe Biden, but I realize it doesn't work, for either, actually as it mentions "president". They're useful, could someone make one for Senators? And use it for Biden's, which right now says "Candidate for Viceth President of the United States", which almost works. McCain's too, I think. Fyezall 21:13, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm the one who added that to McCain, Biden and Clinton and would like that to. It should be in every article for a politician with a lengthy biography. Chippeterson 26 August 2008

"Clean up" edits of entry

I question whether the "clean up" edits of Hillary Clinton tell us more or less about the person. Trivia about upbringing can obscure, while eyewitness accounts of senseless rage can reveal the person behind the image.--Andy Schlafly 20:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)


"Open Marriage"

The term "open marriage" is defined as one in which both partners are freely allowed to have romantic relations outside the marriage. The sources provided for the open marricomply aim only confirm what is widely known, Bill Clinton was a philanderer, and Hillary most likely tried to ignore the fact. This does not constitute an open marriage. Trying to add this content to the Bill Clinton article is a rather obvious response to Newt Gingrich's ex-wife's allegations against him, which I consider spurious and unworthy of this encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not the place for people to draw conclusions about other people's relationships based on hearsay evidence. RachelW 15:43, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Absolutely agree. This is just an attempted smear on Clinton because CP doesn't like her politic leanings. As CP prides itself on not containing gossip, this is hypocrisy incarnate. RobS you should be ashamed of yourself. --DamianJohn 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)
The "open marriage" term appears in the 1992 American Spectator article, pay the subscription fee if you can't read it. Barbara Olsen also uses the term. Rob Smith 16:04, 20 January 2012 (EST)