Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Richard Nixon

2007-10-20T17:12:04Z

Jsmog: /* Nixon's supposed conservatism */

{{protect|TK}}
Do we have to mention Nixon resigned twice? Doesn't that detract a little from more of his accomplishments, many of which are not stated here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Considering much of the watergate scandals are not "stated here", I'd say it's fairly well balanced.

:I'd say it needs some serious reorganization, though. I keep looking at it, trying to figure how to move all that text around so it makes sense (flows well), and then I keep giving up. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::*I have the childhood info, and some other to add. Just under the weather pretty bad right now. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Watergate==
The Watergate stuff is good; however, because Nixon (a) had no prior knowledge of the break-in, and (b) did not give prior consent to the break-in, some of the excessive detail on this page gives undue weight to a common misperception that "Nixon was behind it".

As a solution, much of this material is very good to be included elsewhere, but I firmly beleive it is extremely prejudicial and damaging to Mr. Nixon's posthumous reputatation in such as way as to be grossly unfair. Watergate is not Nixon's legacy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is impossible to slander/libel the dead. Further, info on all presidential scandals ought to be added. I did try to make up for it by including info about Nixon's military service. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, it looks prejudicial because there's not much there--get on it son! ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::But that's the point, there's too much detail about the planning of the breakin, who was invovlved, etc. This for example,

:::''it soon became evident, from hints that emerged at the trial and other details revealed in a series of articles by the Washington Post, that the break-in had the approval of higher-level government officials''

::is a gross distortion long time Nixon wathcers have become accustomed to. Nixon ''is not'' one of these "higher-level government officials", and yet this is used to introduce the Watergate section. This is Nixon's bio, not H.R., Erlichman, Dean, Liddy, or whoever else "gave approval". Simply put, it's innuendo, and it's a restatement of the same type of innuendo we've heard for 30+ years now. I just don't beleive carrying these kind of distortions of fact will work in CP. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe it belongs in the Watergate article, too, but a synopsis of the affair belongs here--just as it does in the Whitewater and Teapot Dome examples. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[Watergate scandal]] has this,
::''Nixon had no prior knowledge of the burglary plans, nor gave consent to the escapade, yet his loyalty to subordinates led to Nixon consenting to cover up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay for the legal defense of those who were involved. ''
:If we just flip-flopped some of the information between pages, it would work. For this bio page, Nixon's invovlement stems from his being over-loyal to wayward subordinates who acted without his prior knowledge or consent. His real failing was being loyal to them, rather than cleaning house of rascals that got him in trouble in the first place. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::How i this inaccurate? I am willing to make changes, but the watergate scandal article is not the place to begin with citing material. That is only self-referential then. Here is the way Nixon's involvement reads right now:

::''"The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. But the damage was done; President Nixon's behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—and the erosion of the public's confidence in his administration, led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power."''

::Why don't we parse this here and work out a compromise? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

===proposed text===

The [[Watergate affair]] ultimately caused Nixon to resign on 9 August 1974. Nixon had no prior knowledge of a plan to burglarize [[Democratic National Committee]] headquarters in the Watergate hotel, yet his loyalty to subordinates led Nixon to approve covering up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay the legal expenses of convicted burglarers. Former White House Counsel John Dean testified to a Congressional investigating committee of Nixon's involvement in the cover-up.

The Congressional hearings revealed Nixon had tape recorded conversations and telephone calls in his office. The president, citing [[Executive Privilege]], refused to turn the tapes over to the committee. In Oct. 1973 Nixon ordered [[Elliot Richardson]], the attorney general, to fire [[Archibald Cox]], the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson resign in protest. Richardson's assistant, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was fired by Nixon. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork fired Cox. The incident, which was trumped in the press as the "[[Saturday Night Massacre]]," although nobody had been killed, led to widespread calls for Nixon's [[impeach|impeachment]].

The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. The House Judiciary Committee issued three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. {{fact}}

"In all of this," the articles of impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." After conferring with Republican Senators Nixon resigned on [[Aug. 9, 1974]]. Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by [[Vice President]] [[Gerald R. Ford]], who a month later issued a full pardon to Nixon, in order to heal the great national rift he perceived might occur if the issue remained open. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Nixon's supposed conservatism ==

Considering that Nixon was hardly a conservative, I'd suggest having a smaller entry for his name. Or perhaps one that highlights his liberal record. I mean: OSHA, EPA, supporting women's rights, the Endangered Species Act, coddling the Commies in China. It doesn't make since that the entry on Bill Clinton is more critical than a President who was more to the left than Bubba![[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:11, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
:There is some merit in this idea, however I would propose it be presented as Nixon's centrism, moderate views, willingness to compromise & get along, tolerance of diversive views and opinions, and adhering to the established order--the established order in this sense being Keynsian [[New Deal]] economics. Nixon's embrace of [[New Deal]]ism led to re-establishing the commie infested Roosevelt Adminstration's Wage and Price Controls (see [[OPA]]). This had a lingering effect on the conservative movement. For example [[Ed Clark]] challenged [[Ronald Reagan]] on the [[Libertarian Party]] ticket in 1980, siphoned off economic conservative votes which was the keystone of [[Reaganomic]]s, and divided the movement. Clark said he did it cause it was the last GOP President who reverted to commie/Democrat decrees that infringe on personal human and civil rights. We can only speculate, Reagan's popular win probably would have been even greater if not for the sins of Nixon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:07, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

At least you're willing to admit that Nixon was a commie! [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:12, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Richard Nixon

2007-10-20T17:11:37Z

Jsmog: /* Nixon's supposed conservatism */

Talk:Bill Clinton

2007-10-20T17:10:08Z

Jsmog: /* Clinton and Gay Bomb? */

:I am going to have to rewrite this article for obvious reasons.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Too even-handed?[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 22:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I tend to think that the fact that the article claims that Clinton was impeached isn't greatly even-handed. I'm a conservative like any other person with reasonable political ideals, but I think we're sort of stretching credibility with this one. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry, my apologies - he was impeached! I need to brush up on my American politics. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 00:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article name ==

I see my attempt at balancing this article was hastily deleted...

Yes, because your link entry was no help to the article at all. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] [[User talk:Jallen|talk]] 11:15, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Ok, does this make sense to have as William Jefferson Clinton when he was known as Bill Clinton? I don't think that anyone seriously would move [[Julias Caesar]] to [[Gaius Julius Caesar]] or [[Plutarch]] to [[Mestrius Plutarchus]] and I don't see how these are substantially different. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:12, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:White House website says: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html William J. Clinton]
:Columbia Encyclopedia says: [http://www.bartleby.com/65/cl/ClintonB.html Bill Clinton]
:Encarta says: [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341/Clinton_Bill.html Bill Clinton]
:Britannica says: [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003019/Bill-Clinton Bill Clinton]
:American Heritage Dictionary says: [http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/C0410250.html Clinton, William Jefferson]
:Clinton Library is: [http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/ William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum]
:Gale's Biography Research Center says:
::Bill Clinton
::(American president, 1946-)
::Also known as: William Jefferson Clinton, William J. Clinton, William Clinton, William Jefferson Blythe
:and includes
::"Bill Clinton," in American Decades 1990-1999. Tandy McConnell, ed. Detroit: Gale Group, Inc., 2001.
::"Bill Clinton," in Current Leaders of Nations. Gale Research, 1998.
::"Bill Clinton," in Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998.
::"Bill Clinton," in Newsmakers. Cumulation issue. Gale Research, 1992. (A profile of the individual's personal life, career, and newsworthy achievements.)
::"William Jefferson Clinton", in Contemporary Authors Online.
::"Bill Clinton," in Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Volume 6: World Leaders, 10th ed. Gale Group, 2001.

::I've moved the article to "Bill Clinton" and created redirects for all the other forms of the name.

:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Impeached? ==

From everything I've learned, Bill Clinton didn't get impeached. He was on the verge of being impeached and resigned. Article needs to be fixed if thats the case.

:I think you're thinking of [[Richard Nixon]]. Clinton _was_ impeached, but went on with running the country anyway. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Impeachment is a term not for removal, but for a vote of trial. President Clinton was impeached, and put on trial. He was not convicted. President Clinton was convicted in another matter, of a Felony. He lost his law license because of that perjury conviction. President Nixon was threatened with Impeachment, but never was there a vote, or trial. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Bill Clinton was convicted of a felony? cite, please? He gave up his law license and paid a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas bar in exchange for no criminal charges being filed.<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/</ref>. It's not exactly scot-free or exoneration, but it's also not a felony conviction. -- [[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 03:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, one step ahead, it seems. He essentially pleaded "Nolo Contendre", and for doing so, was spared the humilation of being convicted. Sorry for my inexcuseable error in mistating a conviction, when on a technicality, he really wasn't. [http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/]

<blockquote>
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a disciplinary action never before taken against a sitting U.S. president, an Arkansas Supreme Court panel has filed suit to strip Bill Clinton of his license to practice law

"The conduct of Mr. Clinton ... was motivated by a desire to protect himself from the embarrassment of his own conduct," the Arkansas State Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct declared in its five-page lawsuit, filed on Friday at about 3:45 p.m. (4:45 p.m. EDT) with the Pulaski County Circuit Court clerk in Little Rock.[http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/30/clinton.disbarment.02/]</blockquote>
--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

As far as I can tell, he didn't plead nolo contendre either, ''because there weren't any charges filed''. Your quote isn't about a plea; it isn't even about charges being filed. It's about a lawsuit being filed. Civil cases aren't criminal. Lawsuits being filed aren't lawsuits being decided. Agreements to avoid charges aren't convictions, or guilty pleas, or even nolo contendre pleas.

In your mind, was Rush Limbaugh convicted of a felony in the oxycontin case? He paid a fine and agreed to drug testing for some number of years in exchange for charges not being filed. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 04:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*What a throughly mean spirited and nasty person you must be. Let it go. I admitted my mistake. What has happened to you in your life to make you this way? I don't condone anyone in the public eye getting treatment others wouldn't get. It is no matter if its Clinton or Limbaugh, and that should be obvious. That you thought I would condone Limbaugh's illegal activities, and not Clinton's speaks to your mind-set. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: And that you would assume I thought knew the answer to my honest question speaks to yours. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 04:23, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

This article goes to great lengths to link the rise of Bin Laden to Clinton, but the old blighter doesn't get a mention in the article on Dubya. Why so? (Need I ask!) [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

On that note, I'd like to ask why the Clinton page mentions minor, inaccurate statements but the page on our current president doesn't even mention a blemish on his presidential career. While Wikipedia articles do contain vandalism, their sysops do an excellent job at controlling it. Why can't we really be fair and unlock all the pages, and simply make our moderators do their job? --[[User:Aurum|Aurum]] 08:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Saying its 'innaccurate" doesn't make it so; the page is locked precisely to prevent the type of vandalism you are suggesting of inserting innaccurate statements.

:BTW, what did [[Sandy Burglar]] do with all those documents, and why? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:19, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Impeachment quote ==

it is totally unclear where "they have made promiscuous use of it" is supposed to fit in - maybe someone knows? [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 17:21, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== The Senate subsequently voted to acquit Clinton. ==

Having this follow the bit about Flynt makes it look as though there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the offer and the acquittal. That may be the case, and it may be nothing more than an interesting coincidence. If it is the case, a charge of that gravity would need to be backed up with a reference, according to the C-pedia rules. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 00:07, 15 July 2007 (EDT).

:Really? You suppose was cause-and-effect between Flynt blackmailing Senators for private conduct & [[Jim Jeffords]] jumping parties in 2001? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:46, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea, nor do I really care. My point is that the way the article is phrased IMPLIES a relationship without documenting it. You want that kind of implication to be on this website without any sort of evidence, that's fine by me. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 14:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:Let's look at the contrast; without it, the implication is the impeachment charges were all bogus and without foundation, and Clinton was somehow victimized. Whereas the historical record shows, Clinton defenders were quit upfront about using blackmail & a "scorched earth" policy to defend Clinton, and even went so far as naming names. Clinton defenders for example publicly claimed they had evidence of homosexual activity by [[Trent Lott]] in his college days, and judging by Lotts reaction to the House Impeachment as reported by House Judiciary Committee Councel [[David Schippers]], [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200012/ai_n8927884/pg_2] it's up to the reader to decide why the evidence in the Clinton Impeachment case was buried. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

So much for discussion, I guess. Look - if C-pedia wants to make the association between Flynt's seedy offer and the Senate's ruling a part of the article (an association which is about as subtle as a banjo as it's phrased here), so be it. At least edit it it so as to have the House and Senate results follow each other instead of being in separate paragraphs...and to spell "acquit" properly.

[[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 00:07, 15 July 2007 (EDT).

:::These are the facts: (1) Stephanoplous & Carville made public statements that others would be outed if Clinton was impeached; (2) Larry Flynt, an old frined of Carville and of Clinton's college roommate at George Washington University, [[Strobe Talbott]], publicly and in a high profile manner interfered with a Consitutional process by offering reward money for blackmail information, never mind if the information was true or not, and stated exactly why he did so; (3) the Senate voted to acquit. (4) Stephanoplous, Carville, Flynt, Clinton, and every Senator who voted to acquit is just going to have to live with those facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

== Cocaine allegation ==

We need a source for the cocaine allegation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:22, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

== "Cruise missiles to manipulate opinion polls" ==

That section title is misleading as it points toward ''suspicions'' but not hard evidence. The body of the section need not be changed but I would like to move that they section be retitled something like: "Cruise missile controversy".

== Clinton and Gay Bomb? ==

What does some unnamed researcher's (denied) request for funding for a ridiculous project have to do with an encyclopedia article about Clinton? Will we also include any silly idea spawned during the Bush era in the GWB article? Or do you honestly think that no researcher ever requested money for another silly project since Bush became President? This and the "See also: Gay Bomb" link will only make CP look foolish, I think.

Seriously, guys, the link between Clinton and the Gay Bomb is nothing more than "Clinton happened to be in power while somebody way lower in the chain had a dumb idea that got rejected by the Defense Department. Chances are he never even saw this request." --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:07, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

*"See Also"'s may or may not have anything at all to do with the article subject, Jenkins. Think of them as further reading material, in the same general category. Like the Reagan article, see Conservative Links, which may or may not include links to personalities and/or organizations Reagan might well have detested. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:30, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

::While I silently disagree with the driving logic, I'm willing to accept it and thus the existence of the "See also: Gay Bomb" part. However, the explicit paragraph in the article itself does look extremely out of place, with or without the "See also" section. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:40, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Right. Just as Reagan just happened to be in power when the AIDS epidemic hit; only in that case, I do not think funding was denied. Nonetheless, we never stop hearing the end of it (See [[Liberal hate speech]], ''Gay Reagan is Dead''). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:21, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Erm... let's see... the term "AIDS" appears 0 times in [[Ronald Reagan]]. Any of the words "Acquired", "Immune", "Deficiency" (or "Immunodeficiency"), or "Syndrome" appear 0 times in the article. "HIV" or "virus" appear 0 times. "Epidemic" appears 0 times. "Disease" appears only in the Alzheimer context. ("Gay" appears 0 times, too.) I also read over the article, and couldn't find any reference to it.
::::At the same time, our [[AIDS]] article makes no mention of Reagan, instead saying that it "was first recognized in the early 1980s". Compare this with [[Gay Bomb]], where you inserted the "proposed during the Clinton era" bit even though all linked sources/references simply say "in 1994".
::::I'm not sure what point you wanted to make, but it looks a lot like mine: "It's just something that happened while the guy was President, but he was not directly involved. So what is this doing in his article?" In fact, this proposal most likely never made it all the way up to Clinton since it was rejected early on. So if anything, the Gay Bomb is even less connected to Clinton than AIDS is connected to Reagan. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:26, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::Yes, that's all very interesting. One wonders why, if AIDS is not exclusively a homosexual disease, why to this day are gay activists and gay activists organizations the only ones who criticize Reagan for not mentioning the term "AIDS"? And again, Reagan funded AIDS research, whereas Clinton promoted homosexual causes, and in doing so could have prevented the 9/11 attacks by dropping a [[Gay Bomb|gay bomb]] on Afghan terrorists camps. But he appears to have failed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::You're dragging this discussion further and further away from the actual point, Rob. Please point out to me where Bill Clinton had any direct influence on the Gay Bomb (...and please tell me that your "Gay Bomb could have prevented 9/11" thing is just a sick joke of yours).
:::::::Here is what the FOX News source says (emphasis mine):
{{cquote|Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Cathy Reardon said the idea was proposed '''by an Air Force researcher''' at a lab at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, but it was '''rejected by the Defense Department'''. Officials noted that the Air Force constantly is considering funding proposals.}}
:::::::Funny, no mention of the President being involved in any way!
:::::::The Gay Bomb has absolutely no connection to Bill Clinton (aside from your '''opinion''' about what he could have or should have done about it). It is completely off-topic in an article about Bill Clinton, and by now I almost assume it serves as some sort of smear-by-association by trying to link Clinton to an absolutely ridiculous proposal made by some researcher. Please prove me wrong and remove it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:05, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Similiar to [[Venona]] project; [[Truman]] had no knowledge of it, yet it is integral to his Administration, the history of his times, and everything that resulted from his decision making thereafter, with or without his knowledge of Venona. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:26, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::In other words: Any decision made at any level in any department in the administration automatically is directly connected to the President in person and thus should be mentioned in his concise encyclopedia article?
:::::::::I must also note your inability to stay focused on the here and now. I start discussing one issue connected to one person, and you immediately swerve to Reagan and Truman, citing things that had significantly more impact than one of undoubtedly countless silly proposals made while Clinton happened to be in charge.
:::::::::Are you seriously basing your Clinton/Bomb connection on your unsourced and unprovable opinion that it could have prevented 9/11 and that thus, the refusal by the Defense Department becomes his failure as President?
:::::::::And am I right in assuming that you'll continue to refuse addressing the points at hand and instead drag me across US History until I give up and leave you alone? If you answer only one question, please answer that last one. Then I could write this off as a lost cause and move on. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

<--

*''In other words: Any decision made at any level in any department in the administration automatically is directly connected to the President in person''
:*Comment: Just like the Watergate breakin, (a) it wasn't even done by a government agency, and (b) Nixon had no prior knowledge. However I don't think we will ever undo the damage done to Nixon's reputation, then or now, by alleged scholarly, reputable, and journalistic sources who seem to ignore this fact. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:43, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[selfquote] ''And am I right in assuming that you'll continue to refuse addressing the points at hand and instead drag me across US History until I give up and leave you alone?'' [/selfquote]
:::I'll take that as a "Yes", then... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:48, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
::::*Am I right in assuming Bill Clinton was an imcometent idiot without a clue as to what was going on in his administration? particulalry as it pertains to national security? I though he was the smartest person to ever walk the planet? I thought having him as First Lady is our only hope of survival of the human species? Why, what you are saying tends to make me think we're being decieved..... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, at least you're focusing on the right person. That's a good start! Now, if you could focus a bit on why you included the Gay Bomb in the Clinton article, we'd make actual progress!
::::::Replying to your post in order:
::::::*I don't know if he is/was an idiot or not. That's not the issue here, though.
::::::*National Security ''might'' be a remote issue if there was proof that he had any influence here, but the articles only say that "the Defense Department" rejected it and that the interviewed officials called it a dumb idea, so it's reasonable to assume that it also would've been rejected without Clinton being President, I'd say. So unless you show that Clinton hired the guy who ended up rejecting it (which would be an indirect link and still not enough to merit being mentioned in the Clinton article in my eyes), it's not the issue here. It might become an issue if you managed to prove that the Gay Bomb (1) would have worked as advertised, (2) would have been ready by 2001, (3) would have been deployed to take out terror camps (Why didn't they just use a normal bomb, anyway?), and (4) would have successfully prevented 9/11. And if you ''somehow'' managed to do all that, here is my question: "Why didn't Bush pick up this project, which so obviously could prevent another 9/11 and magically solve tons of terror problems?" (Oh, wait, don't answer. I assume he did, and it's just Top Secret, and you'll have the last laugh once Bush gayifies dozens of terror camps, right?)
::::::*I don't know if Clinton is the smartest man on the planet - but if I had to guess, I'd say that he's not. Again: Not the issue.
::::::*This issue is also not about Hillary Clinton. At all.
::::::I might have felt some sort of sting if I was a Clinton fanboy. Apparently you think that anybody who disagrees with you about your Clinton edit must be a blind fanatic. How cute. Sorry, but I don't really care much about Clinton (and that goes for Bill and Hillary). I just care about your increasingly silly attempt to justify a completely off-topic edit that apparently aimed at simple smear-by-association (or, if you go through with your theory, smear-by-blaming-Clinton-for-9/11).
::::::Here, let me try this ''yet'' again: '''Where is the link that justifies the Gay Bomb being included in the Bill Clinton article? None of the sources mention him, and the request was simply turned down by somebody in the Defense Department.''' --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:10, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::As I understand, [[Hillary Clinton]] was the [[Dick Cheney]] of the Clinton [[White House]]. While [[Bill Clinton]] & [[George W. Bush]] were just the idiot front men used to pose for pictures with Girl Scouts in the Rose Garden, Hillary, like Dick Cheney (and even GWH Bush in the [[Reagan]] White House) was the ''real'' power and brains behind the throne making policy and running the show.

:::::::So indeed Hillary Clinton has some questions to answer..... 15:29, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::::...I give up. This "discussion" made me lose 20 IQ points, I think. Have fun, Rob.
::::::::To the brave souls who managed to read all the way to here: I tried. I really did. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:42, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Jenkins, why did you bother? This is conservapedia we're talking about here. If the Half-Hour News Hour would've stuck to mining this page for material, perhaps it would still be on the air! [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:10, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-10-20T17:02:17Z

Jsmog: Poor excuse for a Christian

[[/1|Archive 1]]

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
: just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
this article needs a "criticisms" subsection in order to be fair. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 22:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:The only criticism I can think of is, why can not I find articles on Google articles Anne Coulter wrote three years ago, that I know are there? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
::Are the files/articles still on the site where they were originally? The google cache doesn't keep everything until the end of time. If they are still there, is there a robots.txt that prevents google from spidering it? Have you checked other search engines too? If you know the name of the article you might be able to find a reference to it and then use the wayback machine to find an archived copy of it (again, given that the wayback machine wasn't prevented from spidering it either). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I am only going by memory; I got vivid recall in detail of [[meme]]s, yet using them as search terms yields zilch. Hence, I would be reluctant to allow any sort of "criticism", there seems to be a pretty active effort to silence and defame her, and I see no cause whatsoever why CP should be party to it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: There are many ways for site administrators to block spiders from indexing the site. Additionaly, newspapers and caches only have so much storage and tend not to store every single article for eternity - especially opinion pieces. With person who is in the public spotlight, a significant amount of material is and it can be difficult to find older articles that have dropped back in search relevance. Additionaly, if you are a person in the media and you want your material to be found later, make sure you archive a copy on your own web space and don't prevent spiders from searching for it. Are any of these articles you mention on her own website? It has a column archive which would presumably have what you are looking for. There is also an archive of columns that she wrote for http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp . Are the articles you are looking for in either of those lists? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting that you say you can't find any criticism of Ann Coulter. It tells me that bias has blinded you to reality. Ann makes many interesting, relevant, and valid points. Her personal (ad-hominem) attacks also border on the insane. You'd rather just deal with the former, and ignore the latter, because why?

If you want the intellectual and moral high ground, if you want to claim "truth", move past these kind of attacks, and at very least talk about what they are. I think Coulter's personal attacks are geared to make the feebleminded snicker. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 16:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Odd, and here I have always thought her remarks were intended for the more intellectual, given her frequent use of words most citizens do not understand or forgotten the meaning of. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

do you mean statements like this? "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly" -ann coulter [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:Cite an instance where that's not true. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you serious? You believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was driven by Satan and lied constantly? Or that Bobby Kennedy was? Or Susan B. Anthony? Or Rev. V. Gene Robinson? Or Cecil Williams? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Here's the point about [[deceit]]: the biggest victim of deceit is when the deceitful person begins beleiving his/her/it/transgender's own lies. Thus, a person driven by Satan can lie to themself that they are not, when in fact they actually are. Now, if you are a rational person, you surely can understand this perfectly logical point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Jesus? His message was love. He was anti-violence. Pretty liberal, eh? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:32, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
:Love is the liberal message? All I hear is spewing hate. You might have love confused with unnatural acts of copulation, which is pretty much all the Democratic party & liberalism has stood for now for the past 10 or 15 years. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
*Mtur, in today's world, where Katie Curic is attacked by Liberal whackos at moveon.org for reporting fairly about Iraq, I don't think Bobby Kennedy, who was the one who personally approved the wiretapping of MLK, would last a year in public life. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:10, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

"spewing hate" pretty much sums up my criticism of ann coulter. I'm not here to fight the big conservo vs. lib battle, to debate the bible vs other ideas - just to help write conservapedia. Ann coulter says hateful things. She's certainly an intellectual, and makes people think, but - to sum it up- i think the entry loses perspective and validity by not examining her methods in detail. If we all thought like ann spoke, where would we be as a society? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:Please refrain from spewing hate against Ann Coulter; Coulter in reality is parody of liberals we've all been forced to accept as rational spokespeople for liberal ideals for more than half a century. Libs can dish it out, but when a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage pantomimes liberal's ideas of rational discourse and civility on public affairs, suddenly it becomes hate speech. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think she's doing parody, or pantomiming, but more like trying to expose liberal viewpoints as stupid and rediculous by taking over the top counter-arguments. things like saying Darfur is not a real genocide. there is a political message there, but if you want to talk reality, look at how hateful that statement is. mabye you (and many others) think it's okay to say they wished that mcveigh had bombed everyone at the NYT, or "i think women should be armed but not vote". but your reasons must be hateful ones. ann coulter is a self described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative". i dare you to respond without a single reference to "liberals". [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 12:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
:The Darfur genocide comment is exactly a parody of respected liberal spokespeople and arguments; very much in the same vein as "General Betray-Us."

:To deny these types of vicious, liberal snarks and smears is not considered acceptable, and respected, borders on trolling. Why just yesterday I read an AP report that said "in other bad economic news" [http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/09/16/jobless_claims_soar_by_71000/]; this sort of trite trash really gets old very quickly. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

ok, she's doing parody about genocide? people getting butchered? i don't get it- what's the point? is it funny that people are calling for action in the Sudan? I agree with you re: "bad economic news today" but (im assuming you're percieving it as a knock against W) those kinds of headlines occur regardless of who is in office. reporters want to make a story out of something. plus, right now genuinely are a few bad economic things happening. more knocks against conservatives? yeah, mabye. and mabye more reporters just happen to be liberal.

you say coulter's genocide comments are parody just like movon.org's general betray-us is. then you use it as an example of "vicious, liberal snarks and smears". thus, coulter's genocide comment is also vicious, snark and smear. just like I said. if you want to talk about moveon.org. let me say that i don't think they're helping anything in this country, much less liberalism.

all in all, i tend to think ann coulter is a conservative middle finger to the liberal left. and conservatives like it. end of story.

[[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 08:45, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

BTW, your link above is to a 2005 article.

== Coulter & Sarcasm ==

Coulter using sarcasm is mean spirited. Hillary or Gore using it, is merely highlighting a point. Moveon.org stating in a full page advertisement a respected and dedicated General a traitor is "excess". Giuliani responding in the same venue, calling them out for that abomination is "elevating mud throwing and personal attacks very early in the election process". Can you not see how this goes? Do you really feel MSM is fair? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

i definately see what you're saying, and mabye it exposes the bias that reporters have. however, coulter takes her sarcasm to the next level, let's be honest. 08:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:No, sometimes when Coulter uses sarcasm it is mean-spirited, but if you ever actually have read an entire book chapter (or several columns) all the way through, you'll see that she uses sarcasm primarily as an attention-getting device. She doesn't actually hate her ideological opponents: she is heaping more ridicule on their faulty thinking than on them as people.

:In that spirit, let me emphasize that ''only an idiot would think I was literally impugning your intelligence''! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

::I think it's possible for two reasonable people to come to two different conclusions about Coulter's writing style. I think you're a reasonable person, Ed, and I think you believe what you just said about her. I believe that I am a reasonable person as well, and I think (having read a dozen or so of her columns and 1.5 of her books) that she's fairly mean-spirited and full of anger and condescension if not actual hatred. If it's an act, it's so good as to render the question moot. Or so says I, at least. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-doesn't like lib gasbags either....''
:::This might be expected of her, having to live in New York City and all. The atmosphere sure is intolerant and suffocating of dissent and free thinkers like Coulter. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*shrug* You're welcome to let people off the hook like that if you prefer. I don't. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-o/~Dif'rent Strokes to rule the world, yes it does... o/~''
::::On balance, she probably should be applauded and encouraged for standing up to the intolerance and intimidation of minority thought in place like New York City, and cowering before bullies and fascists only encourages them. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:04, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, applaud away. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 00:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: well, i for one am glad that the majority is outright against hate-mongering vitriol, regardless of those subtle messages encoded within for the more intellectual among us. It actually bodes well for our country. However, perhaps i'm just a liberal driven by Satan and am simply lying to myself about it. What was it you were saying about facism and stifiling minority dissent with bullying? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 10:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

<--
When the political consulting team of [[James Carville]], [[Larry Flynt]], and [[Paul Begala]] cease their antics, Larry Flynt retires, wills his entire estate to an orphanage in Trust, and stops trying set-up and blackmail people like [[Jim Jeffords]] and [[Larry Craig]], is the day Ann Coulter will be reined in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm all for criticizing ALL of the above people for their poor words and bad actions. Deal? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I guess we need Flynt & Begala entries then. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Go right ahead, what with this being a wiki and all you should have no problem. You work on those, and leave the people interested in the Coulter criticisms to take care of those. Everyone ends up happy, and CP remains fair. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This Coulterism [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email] isn't just being sarcastic, its the basis for badly needed new article. [[institutional racial hoaxism]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Legal career ==

Can we have an entry on Ms. Coulter's legal career. Assuming, of course, that she has one? [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

== Poor excuse for a Christian ==

Considering her outfits, obscene language, and her call to slaughter innocents, it should be noted that Coulter is a poor excuse for a Christian. [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:02, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-10-20T17:01:15Z

Jsmog: Legal career

Talk:Public Broadcasting Service

2007-10-20T16:55:10Z

Jsmog: New page: Why is PBS' liberal bias not addressed? ~~~~

Why is PBS' liberal bias not addressed? [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 12:55, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Richard Nixon

2007-10-20T16:41:20Z

Jsmog: Nixon's supposed conservatism

Talk:Bill Clinton

2007-10-20T16:36:48Z

Jsmog: /* Clinton and Gay Bomb? */

Talk:Bill Clinton

2007-10-20T16:33:48Z

Jsmog: /* Clinton and Gay Bomb? */