Talk:Barack Obama/Archive8

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>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>

, (new)(back)

Where exactly does Comrade Fidel argue that Obama's election is an indication that American racism is on the decline?

...I don't see it, on a quick skim. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comrade Fidel, in the consensus version, supports the claim, he is now known to the world as the avatar of American racism perhaps being consigned to the "ash-bin of history." nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 01:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, still not seeing where Comrade Fidel says anything about Obama being an avatar of declining American racism. And, BTW, the official newspaper of Cuba's Communist Party is called Granma, not "Grandma." Godspeed (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

EC...Fuck, Rob, I know you're a very stupid man with poor reading skills. I know that, and I feel for you. What Castro says does not in any way support that claim. I'll explain it in small words. The claim is that Obama's (he's the African-American guy) election means there's no more racism. Fidel (he's the guy with the beard. Stick with me.) is arguing that racists will work to undo Obama's policy initiatives (That means making laws and stuff. It's what presidents do.) Castro (beard guy) is saying that even though Obama (Black guy) got elected, racism will still play a role in American (USA! USA! USA!) politics. Kind of the opposite of being consigned to the dust bin. (that means "thrown away." ) P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The consensus version says, avatar of American racism, not avatar of declining American racism. This would fit wp:WP:SOURCES,

• should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

As to Granma, wp:WP:NEWSORG states,

• The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.

Opinion pieces are considered Secondary sources. wp:WP:SECONDARY says,

• Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations... Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them....Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.

In sum, it is hard to find a more expert or authoritative source than the one given. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 02:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The consensus version read "the avatar of American racism perhaps being consigned to the "ash-bin of history. "" That means (perhaps)declining. Try reading to the end of the sentence dummy. Sometimes the words that come after the ones that you like matter.

Also, Wikipedia policy is nice. On Wikipedia. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hard to find someone more expert on American politics than Fidel? The commies have gotten to you, haven't they, Rob? Godspeed (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

P. Foster, No, "he [Obama, a person] is now known to the world as the Avatar of American racism (the descent of a deity to earth, again, a person), perhaps being consigned to the "ash-bin of history" (paraphrasing Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech)." I wish I were wrong, but "the racist right will do its best to try to wear him out by hindering his program and leaving him out of play" says exactly the same thing. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 03:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Rob, no. Obama is an avatar. What is he the avatar of, you ask? Why, he's the avatar of American racism perhaps being consigned to the ash-bin of history. Again, I know you struggle with understanding basic English, but I can't put it any simpler than that. You see, when Obama (who is African-American, you'll remember) got elected, some people thought that was a sign that American racism had been consigned to the dust-bin (that menas that racism was over). Obama's election was seen by some as a symbol of the end of racism in the US. That's what that sentence means. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I wish it weren't so, but it sounds like you agree with Castro and me. He, Obama, the Avatar of American racism is being consigned to the ash heap of history by the racist right doing its best to wear him out by hindering his program. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 03:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘. Rob, stop being so stupid. Obama is not the avatar of American racism. He's the avatar of that racism being thrown away. You are an idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case, "avatar" is being used as per definition 2.b. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a better link, it's to Merriam-Webster's dictionary for people who are just learning English. Again, look at #2. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't be dicks to Rob. I also thought the original passage meant him as the "Avatar of American Racism" as in he is the target of most Republican racial attacks. But I agree, the whole passage was badly worded. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you thought that the passage was trying to describe Obama as the "Avatar of American Racism," then you're an idiot too. If the person who'd written the sentence meant "target," they would have said "target," which is a completely different concept from "avatar." P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, it still reads as Obama perhaps being consigned to the dust bin. You were right the first time in your edit summary, it is clumsy phrasing. So don't get on my case with personal BS & innuendo; all that does is detract from your point by adding ad hominems and shifting the basis of your argument. If you want anymore lessons in rhetoric, I charge $60 an hour. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 03:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you can't read, Smith. It reads exactly like what it says, "American racism perhaps being consigned to the dustbin." P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretative context treats racism as some sort of mystical or deified concept; there's a certain amount of dry wit (also known as dark humor) in that, which both of us use. But let's face it, we're writing with the 12-12-12 rule (you know, What does the average 12 year old, 12th grader, and American adult all have in common? A 12,000 word vocabulary. And this rule doesn't apply just to conservative Republicans). nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 03:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Your interpretative context treats racism as some sort of mystical or deified concept." No, no it doesn't. It treats it as what it is, a historical concept. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with "perhaps consigning the specter of American racism to the "ash-bin of history"^{Do You Believe That?} ", other than that I wrote it? nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 04:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Mine is better. It's more straightforward, punchier, clearer, more concise. Better. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 04:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. So we agree, the phrasing you've defended is clumsy. Consensus achieved. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 18:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

?!?!?!

According to Conservapedia, Obama is "the first known homosexual to become president". WTF?--Martin Joaquinez (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What's a Conservapedia? Тy^rannis 03:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

According to some lame parodist who has been reverted & blocked; not really the same thing. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Deficit

"Obama has been criticized for getting the federal budget deficit to unprecedented levels, forgetting that the budget for 2009 was actually a series of continuing resolutions that kept spending at roughly the same as Bush's era.[14] Keeping in mind the fact that Bush did not include war spending as part of his budgets, and the fact that the majority of debt is due to the recession, Obama has overall decreased the budget deficit, though it's still present." This doesn't make sense to me. The current federal deficit is higher than when he took office, making the last statement flat-out false. I don't see what the 2009 budget has to do with that. Also, I don't see how the debt can be broken down into part caused by the recession versus parts not caused by it.Fdof (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a distinction between debt and deficit, which makes this a confusing phrasing. Our debt level is higher, but the yearly deficit is lower. May need some rewriting.

As to the latter, recession debt can be traced to the huge drop in revenue. When you budget to spend $14 trillion on $12 trillion tax income, you have a $2 trillion deficit - unless the bottom drops out of the economy and you only get $10 trillion income, thereby doubling your deficit (numbers pulled out of the air, not reflective of fact). Also a big factor is that interest rates changed and a lot of productive investment capital evaporated - normal economic activity took a hit across the board. If you're borrowing at 2%, and then there's a recession and your rate rises to 2.5%, that's a chunk of money that's just vanished unexpectedly.--^talk 22:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

When I said the federal deficit is higher than when he took office, I meant that the deficit is higher than when he took office. If you believe otherwise, give me some numbers (with cites), but don't just assume that I don't know the difference between "debt" and "deficit". And the reason there's a deficit is because spending is higher than revenue. Every piece of spending and lack of revenue contributes, and it doesn't make sense to split out one portion.Fdof (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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.--^talk 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. Тy^{Bother 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. ^narchist 16:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can trim some stuff, gimme a minute or three. Тy^{Bother 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)