Talk:Renee Ellmers

Ellmers's anti-Muslim views

This article needs to mention the fact that Renee Ellmers hates Muslims. She ran an ad saying they shouldn't be allowed to build a community center near the World Trade Center site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I plan to go into that when I expand the article and discuss the campaign. Although other people are welcome to beat me to the punch. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure most thinking people don't automatically assume someone who opposes that center "hates Muslims." Such a reflexive conclusion is normally drawn people who don't, as a rule, think. 24.159.110.3 (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. When an editor jumps from "saying they shouldn't be allowed to build a community center near the World Trade Center site" to "Renee Ellmers hates Muslims", that's a huge red flag that the editor is a POV-pusher and shouldn't be editing the article. Cresix (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think think that if you're going to discuss the issue at all, you need to provide the entire quote, which is "The terrorists haven't won, and we should tell them in plain English: No, there will never be a mosque at Ground Zero." While she's clearly not saying she hates muslims, using a mosque's construction as an occasion to say "the terrorists haven't won" shows clearly that she drew a comparison between the building of a mosque and terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.87.165 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Given that one of stated objectives of the terrorists is to replace Western symbols with symbols with which they claim to identify, in this case, a mosque, Ellmers' statment can easily be construed as simply not allowing their objective to successfully manifest. The fact that you take her statement in proper context to be Islamophobic is a strawman argument, wherein you logical fallacy calls into question your objectivity. I'm not so sure that those who exhibit such a subjective, biased view should be editing the Legos Wiki entry, much less any with political overtones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:33D0:DE20:29ED:C67E:61B5:AE8C (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Paycheck

As crazy as what she said is, it is just passing news and really has no place in the article. I'm going to remove it shortly unless someone has a good reason why not to. Beach drifter (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the most attention she's gotten. I would think that comments related to her largest national exposure should get mention.71.207.2.47 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC) this all dirty talk people should be allowed to edit this even if Im doing it just to say don't belive evrything wkikipedia sais — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.183.37 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2013

Renee Jacisin Ellmers (born February 9, 1964) is an American Politician who needs her paycheck and that's the bottom line, and who has been... Asksantajesus (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done—John Cline (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Real Time with Bill Mahers 2014.07.25

"Men do tend to talk about things on a much higher level. ... We need our male colleagues to understand that if you can bring it down to a woman's level and what everything she is balancing in her life (sic) - that's the way to go."

(29 minutes in, quote written on screen, date given on screen: 7/11/2014).

Dunno if you can use that at all. zzz (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Show segment call "Flip a district", website is .com apparently. Cheers zzz (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A rumor about Ellmers

See here. It may be the reason that Kevin McCarthy dropped his bid to succeed Boehner as Speaker of the House. (Walter Jones had sent a cryptic letter to McCarthy's associate Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers warning about skeletons in the closet.) BTW, personally I'd like to see a few more reliable sources about this "open secret" before adding it to either this article or the one about McCarthy. -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

According to The Daily Caller, someone from a DHS IP address made edits on this page and McCarthy's to that effect. I put it above in {{press}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the DHS IP did not edit to allege the affair, they just added the citations to a edit done by Ctbrowne. You can see this by the revision history. JimHoffer11111 (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Department of Homeland Security interference in politics =

The Department of Homeland security is editing Wikipedia??? How is that possibly allowed, either legally or by wikipedia policy. We can not that the largest secritive and intelligence orgqanization involved in controlling news, and a major historical knowledge base. This erodes the validity of wikipedia as a source for knowwledge, not to mention erodes political democracy? Even George Orwell didn't dream this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

DHS investigation

Should the article mention that DHS is investigating whether 1 of its employees posted the affair allegation? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's appropriate to say there's a rumor, when the NY Times has reported on a close relationship and CBS News is reporting that an action connected to the rumor is being investigated. It's just important to avoid suggesting anything about the truth of the rumor. -Pete (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the DHS IP did not allege the affair, they just added the citations to a edit done by Ctbrowne. You can see this by the revision history. JimHoffer11111 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is irrelevent and the fact that it is in the Times is irrelevent. the DHS edited this page, which should not be allowed and then it ends up in the Times. This is still DHS spinning news and should not be allowed on wikipedia.

the whole section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain why it's irrelevant? Nothing in your statement did that. Ratemonth (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)