Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"
(→Punishment image: grammar)
|Line 121:||Line 121:|
:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Revision as of 21:25, June 9, 2008
- 1 No citation
- 2 Why lead with the criticisms?
- 3 Nomination timing
- 4 Association with Black supremacists
- 5 Switching the two pictures' placement
- 6 Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action
- 7 huh?
- 8 Liberal Complaint
- 9 Michelle Obama
- 10 Curious about removal of "liberal bias"
- 11 Punishment image
"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"
Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.
- No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting Barack Obama.--Aschlafly 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
- If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?
Why lead with the criticisms?
This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? Yesaliberal 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--Aschlafly 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the DNC's website has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --Jareddr 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.
- The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--Aschlafly 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --Jareddr 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Jareddr, conservatives don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--Aschlafly 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --Jareddr 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--Aschlafly 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? Wandering 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--Aschlafly 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Association with Black supremacists
I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.
He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".
- I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. Darkknight 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Switching the two pictures' placement
Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--Irockarolex 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute photo bias according to previous attempts. --Jareddr 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--Irockarolex 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --Jareddr 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action
I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--Carterlansford 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever! AdenJ 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
- A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. StatsMsn 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. Murray 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
- I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. StatsMsn 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
- Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. StatsMsn 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:
|“|| So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.
Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. StatsMsn 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"
This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.
Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"
Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
This is simply amazing.
- Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--Aschlafly 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.
- It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many leftists hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--Aschlafly 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a citation needed[Citation Needed] to some [unreferenced opinions], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --SamSamson 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: Obama Family Christmas Card?
Curious about removal of "liberal bias"
Note to editor's - if you remove the Image:Punishment.jpg from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp