Talk:Austan Goolsbee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been automatically rated as Stub-Class by WikiProject Chicago because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove |auto=yes from the WikiProject Chicago banner above.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the |class= parameter in the WikiProject Chicago banner above and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please include Goolsbee recent fiasco with the Canadian officials and NAFTA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.42.88 (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Read the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons. Pay attention to the section about avoiding bad or wrong information, AND the section about avoiding bad information even if it is right unless there is a clear reason to include it. That is why we will not include this information on Hillary Diane Clinton's page either. If you read your facts, you will know that Hillary Clinton may be guilty and was implicated in this by the Canadian officials. This whole package of mud-slinging by the Canadian government was because Hillary's low-level worker bees supposedly contacted the Canadian government to notify them that Her campaign stand on NAFTA (what she would be telling the Ohio voters) was not her true stand. She wanted to assure Canada that NAFTA would remain as-is and strong, and that her Ohio claims of "revisiting NAFTA", if elected, are just posturing for votes on Her part. She even called the original passage of NAFTA, on Bill Clinton's watch, a great "success". For whatever reason, the Canadian government then contacted Obama's camp. What was said is not known, although there is much speculation. But certain biased television networks then presented the issue as Obama himself calling the Canadian Ambassador. Then they asked Obama if he had called the Canadian Ambassador. Obama said no. Then they called him a liar and "proved" it by saying that a Canadian Consulate staffer had called an Obama staffer. As any intelligent person knows, those are not the same thing. Obama was truthful when he said no. For Hillary, she chose to defend herself by procclaiming that she would give "blanket immunity" (to who or whom?) if Canada would release the name of the person on her staff who told Canada that Her campaign position of being against NAFTA was not her real position. Canada rightly recognized this as 'code' and further political posturing on Hillary's part-- since Hillary has no authority over Canada or any Canadian-- the phrase "blanket immunity" is meaningless. As much as you might crave for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination, you must ask yourself where this mud came from and what is the real purpose. Apparently it was meant to tar BOTH Hillary and Obama. Who would have a stake in a desire to slash the electability of Hillary and Obama? (Republicans) Who would have a stake in ensuring the on-going strength and vitality of NAFTA, ensuring that American jobs KEEP being outsourced to cheaper third-world countries? (Republicans). Who would have a stake in ensuring that the rich get richer and the middle-class worker becomes fully enslaved to the whims of the "haves"? (The Top-Tier Republicans, Halliburton style). And finally, who has actual, official daily communication and an official work-relationship with the government of Canada, and all offices of the Canadian Embassy? ANSWER: The Republican President of the United States, George W. Bush, and his hive of worker bees. Again, as much as you want to shoot down Obama, so Hillary will win the nomination, remember that whomever started this poison was aiming at Hillary too. Since this is a currently on-going event that has not been resolved yet, as of March 13, 2008, it has no place here on a Biography of a Living Person. This is not the place for unproven accusations against a living person. If you want to fight for Hillary by spewing this venom, there are many sites currently on youtube and similar websites to vent your venom. Post your stuff there. This page will not be made better by posting U.S. Presidential campaign mud here. -- Joe Hepperle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.23.136 (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia?

This doesn't read much like a wikipedia article. Contralya (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)