Talk:Democrat Party (phrase)/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Roger A. Lohmann |
imported>Roger A. Lohmann |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
::The Bush change sounds like a very specific, and sensible change. (The article was written while Bush was in office.) Do you want to make it or should someone else? | ::The Bush change sounds like a very specific, and sensible change. (The article was written while Bush was in office.) Do you want to make it or should someone else? | ||
::Why protest? Why not just edit? I too, find the forums impossibly complex. Let's discuss it here as Matt suggests. | ::Why protest? Why not just edit? I too, find the forums impossibly complex. Let's discuss it here as Matt suggests. | ||
::[[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:56, 12 March 2009
I'm a liberal and don't reject the use of this term :-)
Though I'm not an American liberal, and from what I've read there is some differences in our American brethern. Denis Cavanagh 06:41, 7 January 2008 (CST)
- Indeed; if you want to get in a mudfight in Washington just refer to the "Democrat party." The current 2008 GOP candidates are not using the term, I think.Richard Jensen 11:59, 7 January 2008 (CST)
- Last time round the subtle attack line was 'John Kerry is a typical Massachussets Liberal' (Emphasised) Don't know what they'll corner Obama on if he gets nominated - attacking a 'Liberal' when he is embracing and encouraging bipartisanship will simply make you look mean. Denis Cavanagh 12:04, 7 January 2008 (CST)
Approval?
Whether any authors and editors at CZ approve or disapprove of this usage isn't really the point. The author(s) of this article appear to have been an excellent job summarizing the dynamics of the issue and as an editor in history and politics, I am ready to nominate it for approval. It would be good if someone from the media workgroup might choose to join me in recommending it. I want to take a look at the subpages, and then I'll give it a full week for approval to give everyone a chance to get in their objections and last edits. Roger Lohmann 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am adamantly opposed to approving this article as it now stands. Prof. Jensen was a very profilic but also very sloppy writer. The present article needs to be *very* closely proof-read. I just glanced at it and I find *many* out-dated references such as "President Bush", without even a "George W." on the first one.
- Where do I go to protest this proposal? Trying to find one's way around the Forums, where the same matters are brought up in different Forums, is impossible to navigate.
- (Also, let us never forget, Prof. Jensen, who now spends his time at Conservapeida, had his own slanted views on many topics, although they were pretty subtly phrased compared to other agenda-driven people we have had at CZ.) Hayford Peirce 02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Bush change sounds like a very specific, and sensible change. (The article was written while Bush was in office.) Do you want to make it or should someone else?
- Why protest? Why not just edit? I too, find the forums impossibly complex. Let's discuss it here as Matt suggests.
- Roger Lohmann 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)