Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(He's Gay Too)
(He's Gay Too)
Line 532: Line 532:
:Thanks!  It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke.  I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks!  It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke.  I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually Tony, there are some good reasons to seriously doubt Larry Sinclair's story.  Starting with him failing the polygraph test and his '27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers'. Then add in his arrest for an outstanding warrant after his press conference and he does not come across as the most credible of sources. There are enough actual problems with Obama that the American people should be focusing on and not getting side tracked by gossip.  --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 12:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
==Unlock For Update==
==Unlock For Update==

Revision as of 10:55, 21 June 2008

Archives: 1 2

False Citation

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

Religious Views

Is "reared a Baptist" accurate? Was he born and raised Baptist? Did he attend Christian church while going to Indonesian public schools? He talks of no religion and of finding religion in his book, I think (didn't read). reared?--jp 11:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

No citation

"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)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. Yesaliberal 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of placement bias, where it leads with liberal fluff and buries or omits informative truth.--Aschlafly 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
LOL! Yesaliberal 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. Bugler 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. Yesaliberal 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Nomination timing

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)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

Well, look. Any black person who competes with any white person for anything in America has the benefit of white guilt and preferential treatment. That's because the liberals run everything. This in turn means that any time you see a black person in a good job you can say, "That just proves black people are inferior, because he wouldn't be there without affirmative action." This seems to be the subtext here, anyway. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's as racist as a burning cross.

ASchlafly: Is it inconvenient to be so transparent? Do people, like, see you digesting your breakfast and stuff? User:Archer070


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)
Liberals do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--Aschlafly 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. Athuroglossos

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)

Liberal Complaint

"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)

Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--Aschlafly 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]
You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--Aschlafly 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:
* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.
* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. SamSamson 17:32, 9 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)

Why, yes. Yes they do.--Irockarolex 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Michelle Obama

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"

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [1] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? Wandering 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? Pharaonic 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal bias, not one that censors facts that happen to be inconvenient to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. Pharaonic 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.AliceBG 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [2]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.
AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as liberals are fond of saying.--Aschlafly 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. Athuroglossos
Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say Obama that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for George W. Bush with such fervor also?--Aschlafly 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --Jareddr 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --JMarks 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. Hindublog 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If I could propose another track, the whole discussion about Obama's "professorship" is based on everyone's different idea of what a professor is. Some say a professor has to be the research/paper-publishing/tenured kind while others say it's up to the employer. How about actually using Conservapedia's definition of professor to decide whether or not he is one? Given this is an encyclopedia after all, I would think that's the most logical (conservatively or liberally) definition to use.

The current definition stands as "based on peer review of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university". I suggest everyone base their arguments on this definition, or alternatively work to improve the rather skimpy Professor article instead of waging an edit war here.--Sentri 22:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Punishment image

Note to editors
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)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the blocks for removing the image will be increased to 3 days. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 21:36, 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

Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --Jareddr 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
"Editors" not "Editor's" Dnotice 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.Godlover 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, Image:Punishment.jpg is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --Elkman 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. Fantasia 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. TBarret 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--jp 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. Bugler 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. Bugler 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--jp 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--jp 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I also removed the picture from the McCain article.

I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? HenryS 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.AliceBG 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Why don't you do it? HenryS 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.AliceBG 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? HenryS 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? AliceBG 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. HenryS 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. Karajou 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- Aaronp
Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. Karajou 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? HenryS 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.AliceBG 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. HenryS 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. Karajou 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Page does exist: [3]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. Karajou 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* HenryS 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. Bugler 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not AdenJ 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--jp 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -CSGuy 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

"but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation."

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. Wandering 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--Jareddr 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? TBarret 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--Aschlafly 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Guess who does wear a flag pin.....Mr. Bathroom Knocker himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --JMarks 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. TBarret 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

The Introduction

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. TBarret 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. TBarret 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.AliceBG 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --Jareddr 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)


I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--jp 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The Senior Lecturer Reference

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --Jareddr 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

"Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam."

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.AliceBG 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
It's wrong to say he went to an Islamic school. He did not, and there is no evidence that there is. Conservatism is about a set of ideals, not fudging the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Impm (talk)

57 Islamic states...

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. AliceBG 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --Jareddr 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--Aschlafly 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --Jareddr 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --Jareddr 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

here is the full quote.
"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! Humblpi 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!
Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--Aschlafly 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Tim, that makes a lot of sense. I was puzzled when reviewing the YouTube speech, because he said "fifty ... seven" (where the ellipse indicates a kind of dragging out or pause, where he have begun to be aware of his verbal slip. It makes sense if he meant to say forty-seven because
  1. He went on to say that he was not going to visit Alaska or Hawaii (50 - 2 - 48)
  2. He said he had one state to go (48 - 1 - 47)
It might be good for us to contact his campaign HQ and ask for a clarification. Does he stand by fifty-seven, or did he mean forty-seven? --Ed Poor Talk 17:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

According to this site http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp the senator poked fun at himself for saying 57 when he meant 47. It seems like just a verbal slip up to me. CraigC 10:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Drug use

Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? TonyT 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Please provide a cite. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [4]. TonyT 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). Wandering 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. Bugler 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. Wandering 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. DannyRedful 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? TonyT 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it. Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. DannyRedful 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. TonyT 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. DannyRedful 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. TonyT 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? HenryS 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --DinsdaleP 16:21, 13 June 2
No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. TonyT 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Since you've decided...

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,



Political Views

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--jp 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? WillD

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--jp 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)


Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? StatsMsn 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for abortion.--Aschlafly 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. StatsMsn 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about abortion. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--Aschlafly 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I would have no problem with Obama being excluded from this category if there were consistency in how it is used, but it seems there isn't. I believe we've never had a non-Christian president, yet several are not in that category (apparently more Democrats than Republicans, which isn't surprising, but excluding George W Bush and Reagan, which is). There are many liberal Christians, so I don't see political position being the deciding factor. As for his name, well, how many people change their name upon conversion to Christianity? (You mention Saul, but are there examples from the past 1900 years to back up your case?) In fact, changing one's name seems to be a Muslim trait (Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens). And is his name a Muslim name, or just a foreign one? Is Fugimori a "Shinto Name"? What is the criteria for being Christian enough to be in the category? Jaguar 22:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Christians and Abortion

Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion. Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians. Drochld 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?

If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition. How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? Drochld 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Why would he change his name? Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name. You're confusing race with religion here... Dchall1 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

57 states, again

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname did not even exist as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. Btraven 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--Aschlafly 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. Btraven 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.
I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--Aschlafly 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? DannyRedful 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and liberals hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--Aschlafly 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? DannyRedful 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there. AdenJ 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. DanH 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? Drochld 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point. AdenJ 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Snopes takes apologist stance on Obama's ignorance of number of US states Drochld 10:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

More on changing his name

I'm starting a new section because it's hard to know where to put this, given that this matter has been touched on a few places above.

AdenJ earned a month-long block for removing the part of the following text that I've italicised:

Obama has declared himself to be a Christian, yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do.<ref>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to Islam, he took the Muslim name of Muhammad Ali.</ref>

I don't consider the lack of a name change to be of much significance, and the supporting reason in the <ref> tags don't hold up or support the point.

  • The evidence seems to be that Saul didn't change his name to Paul when he became a Christian.[5][6][7].
    • Rather, he already had both Jewish (Saul) and Roman (Paul) names
    • Although it seems that he changed to favouring the Roman one, this was not done at conversion
    • There's apparently no good evidence that it was because of his conversion.
    • "Paul" being a Roman name, you can't argue that he changed his name to a Christian name anyway.
  • The text says "as many do", which is an implicit admission that not all do, so an individual not doing so means little.
  • Evidence of a "Christian" changing his name upon conversion to Islam is not evidence that people with Muslim names normally change their name to a Christian one.

So the supporting evidence doesn't support the claim, the claim is questionable, it's removal was justifiable, and AdenJ's block, to the extent that it was due to this edit, was not warranted. And as for it being his ninth block, at least some of the earlier eight do not appear to have been warranted.

Philip J. Rayment 10:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

There were additional reasons for AdenJ's block, including numerous prior blocks by many other Sysops, last wordism on my talk page after being warned, and what I considered to be deception in his claims about partnerships/marriage in New Zealand (Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative).
AdenJ's outright deletion of the name issue without improving it was simply censorship. Philip, you've identified some room for improvement in the entry and those are always welcome. Censorship is not. If someone keeps a Muslim name and, with obviously political benefits, claims to be a Christian, or vice-versa, the name is plainly reason to be skeptical about the self-serving political claim.--Aschlafly 10:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I've already answered the point about his other blocks, which were by three other sysops, hardly "many other Sysops". I see no sign of deception on that talk page. The only fault I can see is in implying a generalisation based on anecdotal evidence. As for his "last wordism", he had made a total of one prior post in that conversation, and his final post was merely trying to explain himself, not continue that particular discussion. It's hardly a good case of "last wordism". Sometimes outright deletion is improvement, and hardly constitutes censorship unless, perhaps, the deletion is enforced, which he was and is unable to do. As for it being "plainly a reason", I've already provided reasons why, at the very least, it is not plain, and likely not even a reason. Philip J. Rayment 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
A small point here, as it's been brought up many times. Muhammed Ali did not change his name because of his conversion to Islam. He changed his name because Cassius Clay was a "slave name." In other words, his name was a continuation of a name given to an ancestor when his family was enslaved. His name changing was simply part of a larger trend going on in that time period. I won't disagree that what he changed to wasn't religiously motivated, but the change itself was to free himself of what he considered to be a denigrating name, not because of his religious conversion. JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
You'll have to explain thousands, or millions, of similar name changes if you are unwilling to acknowledge that a fundamental change in belief does cause most to change their name away from what they reject. To take another high-profile example, Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashād.--Aschlafly 15:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Thousands or millions? Wandering 16:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, it is common when people convert to Islam (it might be a specific tenet of Islam), but is it to religions other than Islam, or is it just a requirement for Muslims? Does anybody with more knowledge of Islam know? It doesn't seem to be common when people convert to Christianity, so that might explain it. DanH 16:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
It is a requirement for Muslims. Christianity has no similar requirement. Learn together 16:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Some Christian churches do require it. In fact, I think the largest does. Moreover, nearly all evangelical Christians would be uncomfortable keeping a Muslim name.--Aschlafly 16:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
What church are you referring to? And is it a formal requirement, or just a convention? If the former, can you point me to the requirement? Philip J. Rayment 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I think most, perhaps all, churches that authorize baptism require a Christian name for it. For example, I think the Catholic Church requires a Christian name for baptism. I would expect the Anglican Church to require likewise, and expect that virtually all evangelicals reject continued use of a Muslim name at baptism.--Aschlafly 08:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
An interesting point. However, that brings up some questions. Is this true of Obama's church? And what exactly is meant by a "Christian name"? In some usage it is a synonym for a first name, which he obviously has. "Barack" is a derivative of "Baruch" an apocryphal Biblical name preceding the foundation of Islam by over a thousand years. I admit I don't know much out baptismal names, but do they have to be "Christian" in the sense that they appear in the New Testament? When someone baptizes their child with one of those trendy new names like "Dakota" or "MacKenzie" do they have separate baptismal names, and if so, do they ever actually use them? If "Bruce" converts in his adulthood and is baptized, does he take a new more distictly Christian name that he then uses regularly? There has been a bit of a backlash recently against changing names, as a response to having "American" names forced upon immigrants at Ellis Island in years past. And I'm still not sure his name is "Islamic" so much as foreign. It's not as if his name is "Barack Muhammad Allah Akbar Hijra Abu Bakr" or anything. Jaguar 11:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama is not an evangelical, however, nor is he answerable to evangelical conventions. --IlTrovatore 16:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Your comment begs the question of what Obama really believes. There's precious little objective evidence that he's a Christian, and much to suggest otherwise. His politically self-serving claim that his Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" has less than a 1% chance of being true, and that implausibility casts doubt over Obama's other religious claims.--Aschlafly 16:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have trouble believing that he is actually a Christian, then why would you have trouble believing that he is not an evangelical? Also, what evidence are you referring to that he is not really a Christian? Does this have something to do with the "Freudian slip" that no "real" American could possibly have ever made regarding the number of states in the Union?

As for the prevalence of atheism in Kenya, is it not possible that many people deny being atheists because of anxieties regarding cultural perceptions of atheism? --IlTrovatore 16:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it really surprising anyone that CP has hopped on the right-wing "Obama is a secret Muslim" bandwagon? --transResident Transfanform! 16:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I'm not so sure that it's a secret. The evidence may not be perfect, but it is evidence nonetheless. I think he protests too much. --AdmiralNelson 17:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Is it really surprising that liberals believe Obama's implausible myth that he is a committed Christian? His own brother says he was a Muslim, and there is precious little evidence he ever gave it up. He's been caught in a blatant lie about his past beliefs, there's less than a 1% chance he's telling the truth about his father's beliefs, and less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity, so there's a less than .01% chance he's been telling the truth about him and his father. But, of course, for people who believe we evolved from monkeys when even if it were possible would be a trillions to one chance, .01% seems probable. People should go to Wikipedia if they want a glowing article on Obama that he could have written himself. We're interested in the truth here. TonyT 17:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Response to an earlier post:Mr. Schlafly, My comment had nothing to do with debating whether or not all muslims change their names. I was simply stating that Ali's change was not for religious reasons, it was for slavery/cultural reasons JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 19:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ya know what? Now that I think of it, why should it matter what religion he follows? Do people think that there is something inherently wrong with Muslims that makes them unfit for public office? --transResident Transfanform! 19:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, there is a problem with the religion he follows. Christians don't kill people, but Muslims kill lots of people all the time. THAT is why it is important.--AdmiralNelson 19:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, it goes like this: Moderate Christians and Muslims don't kill people. Radical Christians and Muslims do kill people. --transResident Transfanform! 21:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
If that's true, then there must be relatively few radical Christians, and relatively many radical Muslims, as the latter do a lot more killing than the former. But disagreeing with AdmiralNelson's specific reason, because it doesn't follow that a particular individual is going to be killing just because he's a Muslim, the reason that the religion of a president is important is because a worldview/religion is what shapes one's values and standards, and these will affect decisions that he will make. So the religion of a president is a very relevant matter to voters. Philip J. Rayment 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
"Christians don't kill people"? Last I checked, the military was full of Christians, often evangelical. Killing people is a big part of what they do, is it not? Sure you don't want to modify that statement? Jaguar 08:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
The discussion was clearly about people doing it because they were Christian or Muslim, so we weren't talking about self-defence, wars, or legal executions. Philip J. Rayment 09:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
If you're implying that radical Muslims kill more often than radical Christians, you're suffering from media/selection bias. Groups like the Army of God and the KKK pridefully kill in the name of Christianity.JPohl 10:00, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
No, I'm suffering from truth bias. The KKK is hardly Christian, and the Army of God is an exception to the rule. Besides, how many have those groups killed compared to Muslim killings? Philip J. Rayment 10:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
According to the KKK FAQ (on requirements to join):
  1. You must be be a free white male or female of European descent, at least 18 years of age.
  2. You must be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
It's unfortunate, but yes, they are Christian extremists.JPohl 10:44, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) For me, part of what I look into is what do the texts of the religion say, in this case the Bible and the Koran, with the Koran also having follow up material compiled in the same time period that is revered by Islam as well. I've found it's not a coincidence that extremism is common to Islam as it is much easier to follow based on the writings themselves. In Christianity, it is far more difficult, and so the 'extremists' generally have to bend reality. Where in the Bible does it talk about the need to be a white European as if that is somehow associated with Jesus? Learn together 18:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Spot on, Learn together. Anybody can call themselves "Christian", but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Therefore you need to look at whether their actions and beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches. The KKK doesn't qualify. The KKK does not have the support of most of the Christian community. In contrast, I've often noticed tacit if not explicit support for Muslim "extremists" by large sections of the Muslim population. If the rest of the Muslim population condemned the actions of the "extremists", I'd be happy to say that Islam doesn't do much killing either (only people calling themselves "Muslim"), but that appears to not be the case Philip J. Rayment 19:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Muslims that kept Semitic or Islamic names

Hussain Andaryas kept his semitic name, as did the Rt Rev Hassan Dehqani-Tafti, this convert (who kept the name "Mohammed"), and the Christian martyr Mehdi Dibaj. Drochld 19:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it possible these people were baptized with Christian names, but chose not to use them as their everyday names? I know Jews often do something similar. Drochld 10:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


Please upload the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaDrudge.jpg -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

He's Gay Too

Since we're largely using the interview of one person to show that Obama is Islamic, perhaps we should add that he's gay as well. I'm sure there are some slips of the tongue that will support it as well. StatsMsn 20:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

A couple of our usual sources agree, the evidence is mounting: [8][9] StatsMsn 21:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
From what I read, it's nothing beyond an allegation. Until absolute, irrefutable proof shows up, we cannot state that he is gay...because if he is not, then it's libel. Karajou 21:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Then report on the allegation, there is more than enough evidence to warrant its inclusion in the article, and opens the possibility of an alterior motive behind Obama's support for gay marriage. StatsMsn 22:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
So, Karajou, on that basis we should also not claim that he's not a Christian, until "absolute, irrefutable proof shows up"? I'm glad you agree. So would you mind removing that part that questions his Christianity? Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 09:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
My statement here had to do with allegations that he was gay, NOT about his Christianity. Don't you ever put words in my mouth again. Karajou 10:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I know that your statement was about homosexuality. But you were rejecting putting that in the article on the basis of a principle, so I merely applied your principalprinciple to a different case. Or is there some reason that different principles apply in the different cases? Philip J. Rayment 10:39, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
That's your conversation and your principle. Deal with it. Karajou 10:43, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Apart from the typo, that was your principle (although I basically agree with it). You didn't explain why the same principle doesn't apply in the other case. Philip J. Rayment 11:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
These accusations should be in the article. We won't say he is gay, just that a credible source has publicly accused him of it, and he makes a convincing case. People deserve to know that if they vote for Obama, there is a chance they are voting for a homo. We're not making anything up here. It's reliably sourced. TonyT 08:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Tony, "sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not the same thing. I can put up a webpage that says John McCain is gay, and then post it here and say it's "sourced". Does that mean it is reliable or in any way accurate? Absolutely not. The Townhall article states that he would be the first "gay" president, and compare it to Clinton being the first "black" president. They're not saying he's gay, but rather that he will fight for gay rights. The second article, from Huffington Post, repeats conservative smears that a picture showing Obama greeting another male is a sign that he's "gay". I've greeted many friends and co-workers in the same manner as the photo portrays, and I'm sure many on this site have made the same greeting as well, without being labeled gay. It's the most flimsy accusation I've ever seen. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true. --Jareddr 10:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Read the first article: "Larry Sinclair, a gay man from Minnesota who alleges he snorted cocaine and had sex with the Democratic nominee." This is a man giving a first hand account of a homosexual experience with Obama. We have absolutely no reason to believe that he is making it up. The liberal media is eager to smear Larry Craig as gay merely because an overzealous cop decided tapping his foot was the same as propositioning someone for sex. But someone, damaging his own reputation, admits he had a sexual relationship with Obama and there's a huge whitewash. We don't have to say the accusation is true (though it would explain a lot) but it is a disservice to ignore it. TonyT 12:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The Huffington Post was a piece of satire! The RNC never said that at all, the picture is actually of Barack Obama giving a hug to John Edwards, and it was made grainy on purpose as part of the joke. --Tordenvaer 10:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke. I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real. --Jareddr 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually Tony, there are some good reasons to seriously doubt Larry Sinclair's story. Starting with him failing the polygraph test and his '27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers'. Then add in his arrest for an outstanding warrant after his press conference and he does not come across as the most credible of sources. There are enough actual problems with Obama that the American people should be focusing on and not getting side tracked by gossip. --Tordenvaer 12:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Unlock For Update

In Senate section, this needs to be included in the GI Bill or the following sentence needs removed. "Taxes of those earning... for ten years."

Add- Democrats dropped a provision to pay for the GI college benefits by imposing a half-percentage point income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $500,000 for singles and incomes over $1 million earned by married couples[1]--jp 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Religious affiliations

These include the statements "God ....". I am starting to have seconds thoughts about seeing this posted here. It is just such an outlandish amount of disrespect to God, that maybe it shouldn't be repeated, thoughts(name in Vein)?--jp 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Examples of "non-charisma"

I saw this in the encyclopedia page ("Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a teleprompter. 'Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.'[62] The New York Times noted that 'Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.'[63] When Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being like Annie Oakley, it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.[64]") and was wonderng if someone could direct me to a audio file or website that has an example of one of his bad speeches

Speculation vs Fact

I'm still relatively new here but would like to clarify something (at the risk of beating a dead horse). For the paragraph "Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation. Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors." should "presumably" be allowed in the article? It seems that the statement becomes speculation rather than an established fact. Also the citation attached to it does not make that claim either.

I don't have the rights to do an edit to the main article so I'm writing it here. Hope it doesn't count against my 90/10 thing.--Sentri 11:41, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh and on an unrelated note, there's a space missing in "thePennsylvania".--Sentri 11:43, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm being anal here but the following need minor corrections
"president of the United States" - Capitalization
"office of the presidency" - should be "Office of the President"

"Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and or community organizing."--Sentri 11:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
  1. [10], http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1 , AP Bipartisan accord reached on war funding bill, June 19, 2008