Talk:Barack Obama/Archive5

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>

, (new)(back)

Old speech

Could an American look at this (adapted from the Keynote Address delivered on June 28, 2006, in Washington, D.C. at the Sojourners/Call to Renewal Conference):

... For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.- ...

... And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount—a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?- ...

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.- ...

I know it's old news but it's the first time I've seen it. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 12:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The second quote is definitely worth having somewhere in the article or something. I really, really like that entire section. ^bomination 15:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it great that we could elect someone who speaks like that President? ħuman 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism dump

I am loath to accept a 18k dump of material from a user that appears to have an axe to grind, and who admits it was rejected by WP. I think the material needs some vetting. tmtoulouse 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't mind criticisms of him as long as they are legitimate and not just a hitlist of right wing talking points. Wanna go over to WP and see why these things were rejected? It might just have been "non-encyclopedic tone". The "economy like MI" section will be gone in a moment, the cite (If You Like Michigan's Economy, You'll Love Obama's, The Wall St. Journal, September 13, 2008) is to an op ed, not a "fact". ħuman 23:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of crap in there. The education section cited a 200 page pdf without using a page number or salient quote, and a GOP interest group editorial type thing. Citing people who hate Obama in order to criticize him is weak. I left the coal thing for now, but it's fairly trivial, and wasn't presented honestly. I wouldn't care if someone just vaped the whole addition based on the low quality of the sources I am seeing, and the lack of honesty. I'll keep looking at sections and cites as long as it's there, though. ħuman 23:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Environment section: more tripe. "Oval office" thermostat becomes "White House" thermostat. So he flew on Earth Day, so what? The "hummer of beef" thing was stupid, too. ħuman 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever had Wagyu? It is fabulous, I don't blame him. I notice this guys idea of well sourced is "I have a link to something" rather than, this is an actual good source (or sauce in the case of beef). 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Π / talk / contribs}

The play on words is lost upon those of us who speak in rhotic accents. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: My lack of comment or editing on the other sections does not constitute an endorsement of them. I just haven't followed their refs (or read them) yet. Anyone else want to help? ħuman 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Screw it, I banged it all, due to my experience of checking refs for the other 5 or so sections. We were trolled by a right wingnut. As I said, we are welcome to crits of BHO - hell, we even have a section on the matter. Just don't bring your GOP/Palin/Limbaugh droppings here with your crappy refs. ħuman 05:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a "right wing nut." I'm a "libertarian nut." This article already has a lot of stuff with no sources - my sources are better than no sources. I strongly disagree with the deletion of the material that I added, but I don't want to get into an edit war. I thought this website was about having a sense of humor, but perhaps I was wrong? Drop Dead Fred (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me. When did humor enter this discussion? ListenerX^TalkerX 15:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There's RW's humour and then there's ED, UC's or LP's (sort of) sense of humour. For a start, Rational Wiki is not a dump for stuff that was rejected from Wikipedia outright. Usually if WP rejects something, it's for a good reason and while RW doesn't have notability guidelines so we're allowed to have stuff Wikipedia wouldn't consider, we don't just automatically stick it up because it "needs to be somewhere". ^bomination 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DDF, if you feel so strongly about this, you should put the criticisms in an essay and let us blast them to bits on the talk-page, should we feel that it is worth it to do so. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, there are many editors here who think Obama has a thankless task trying to rectify the mistakes of previous administrations as well as set his own agenda which is approved of by many people. Hitting the article with everything in one go was only ever going to annoy people, rather like a Gish gallop. You could try trickling bits in gently which gives other editors a chance to challenge your stuff one item at a time. However if you think RW is the place to host a WND, NRA or Tea-bagging style hit-piece then I think you are very much mistaken. Генгис^mutating 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Setting it up as an essay woould make sense. That way it "is somewhere". And I wouldn't object to a "tasteful" see also link here to it. ħuman 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The many faces of Obama...

Can anyone shoop up something similar without that goofy-looking white guy bottom right? Who is he? What's so funny about him? I don't get it...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

He is the founder of Conservapedia. 'Tis but a joke. And a funny one at that.

DeCPying

I think this article contains way to many CP references. Should we cut back and where to start? I do like the CP box under smear attempts though, that is a good use of that template. - π 02:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the placing of that template. But yes, I think this needs a tidy. It's like a hundred different people have said "I know, I have a great joke about Obama!" and inserted it and it's now so full of snark that it's diluted to the point where we may as well copy and paste Uncylopedia's version. What next, do we add he was "born in 35 BC lolz!!!11"? 09:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as the CP-centrism/references, can you point them out? In the reflist I only see one link to CP, for instance. ħuman 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama has had enough of those motherfucking creationists in his motherfucking country

and is going to take things into his own hand... ^{— Unsigned, by: Gmb / talk / contribs}

Link not work. ħuman 17:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This does though. ħuman 17:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)