Talk:Barack Obama

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could do with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png


This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>

Contents

[edit] Another defender

More deletions: by Broken1201, a "new editor".

[edit] Religious Bigotry

I find it offensive that Obama made a speech in which he called for "unity", then make a completely gratuitous swipe at atheists, making it clear that when he talked about how "we" were united as one American family, he meant "theists". Calling this "one nation under God", let suggesting that it is needed for "pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place", is flat-out bigotry. The fact that this is common across both parties makes it no less offensive; on the contrary, it makes it worse. Furthermore, my original edit was contrasting Obama saying that it was "doubtful" that "children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed" with the fact that OBVIOUSLY, children do feel oppressed, as evidenced by the fact that a former child sued over the issue. The current edit, besides being grammatically off, fails to point out this absurdity.Fdof (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, right, but, ah see, he's got to do some pandering. Who do you think his people would rather piss off, the 300,000,000 theists or the few million atheists, (who're probably going to wote for him in any event)? 05:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

[edit] Balaam removed all of the snark and totally changed the tone of the article....

Is that cool? I think it is not cool. JubalHarshaw (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it looked better before.--ADtalkModerator 13:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I mean, I understand that there's an election coming up and I respect that people are going to be a little more partisan in their editing--but if a snarky article on a marginal wiki is going to influence someone's vote, I'm not sure I trust that person with the franchise. JubalHarshaw (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Being the wiki's resident humorless bastard, I say revert but keep the cat changes. ТyBother me 13:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Whether you trust them or not they've GOT a franchise. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
That was joke, bozo. JubalHarshaw (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between good snark and excessive cramming that makes things unreadable. There's only a certain number of "jokes" you can get per word count before it starts being unfunny, and this article has been over that line for a long time. I would say to go back to Balaam's version and work from there to re-insert some style, rather than trying to get the current version scrubbed up. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 16:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll see if I can trim some stuff, gimme a minute or three. ТyBother me 17:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I should mention that I only removed one or two gags outright, most of the snark I just moved from the opening paragraph (which currently looks like a Democrat incarnation of Dennis Markuze has tried to write an Uncyclopedia article) to the section on smear attempts. The way I see it snark is perfectly appropriate for subjects that are clearly ludicrous - such as the smears - but the rest should be kept reasonably straight. Balaam (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary

'He appointed Hillary "respecting atheists is offensive"[citation needed] Clinton to Secretary of State.' I don't understand this. Am I missing something? I googled the phrase and didn't find anything. Is she supposed to have said this? IslamoCriticism (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently she described the removal of the phrase "under God" from the pledge of allegiance as an "offensive" decision, & has said various negative things about atheism & secularism. But since this isn't explained either here or in our article about her, the statement quoted above rather a cryptic ad hominem. I'm taking it out. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The main problem

...is that he is #not a reptilian#. 82.198.250.2 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Is this particulary conspiracy theory unique for American Thinker, or widespread?

I happened to find a reference to the hilarious article http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/the_illusion_of_obamas_bin_laden_raid_situation_room_leadership.html on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American Thinker#Satire? a short while ago. The "analysis" presented seems very similar to the arguments about a great Moon landing hoax. Briefly, the American Thinker article seems to claim that a forged photo was published at the time of announcement that Usama bin Ladin was killed. The purported reason for the purported forgery was said to be to convey a false impression that Obama "is presidential".

The article refers to an earlier article in the same medium. I'd like to know more about this conspiracy theory, in particular, whether it has appeared else than in the two aforementioned articles, and in other media. 130.237.198.137 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Bouncywikilogo.gif
There is a broader, perhaps slightly less biased, article on Wikipedia about User:JoergenB
Pay it no mind. If someone handed you ta pamphlet with the same argument on the corner of a busy street at rush hour, you would think "this guy is crazy and his pamphlet is of no consequence." Why should you take him any more seriously because he has internet access? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
American Doesn't Spend Much Time Thinking isn't just a nutter with a phamplet, it's the nuttiest of the nutters with phamplets. I mean, seriously, that blog is in a league of its own for hilariously stupid points masquerading as self-declared intelligence. It surpasses Vox Day for sheer stupid. And I don't mean just wingnut views, I mean the sheer inability to put 2 and 2 together to make a number between 3 and 5. Either way, anything like that is more appropriate for the relevant American Thinker article, not Obama's. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
@Practice, I'm not concerned with the sanity of the idea, but with its potential noteworthyness. The theories about a "lunar programme conspiration" are not very sane, but they are clearly worth notice.
I interpret these answers to mean that neither of you have encountered this particular conspiration theory anywhere else than in the American Thinker's own forum. If so, it is probably not noteworthy. Thanks, 130.237.198.137 (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
"I'm not concerned with the sanity of the idea, but with its potential noteworthyness." That's exactly my point: it is in no way noteworthy. You only think it might be noteworthy because you saw it on a reasonably-professional looking website. If you heard me talking about it while I stood on the corner of 6th Ave and 34th Street, or if I printed it up in a pamphlet and handed to you outside the Times Square Subway station, you would completely disregard it. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support