Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton"

Revision as of 20:55, July 26, 2007

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. Crocoite^talk 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.

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

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. --Wikinterpreter^talk?

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.