Talk:Barack Obama/Archive9

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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>, <8>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, (new)(back)


'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. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The main problem[edit] that he is #not a reptilian#. (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

I happened to find a reference to the hilarious article on 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. (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
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, (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)

Tubular blockages[edit]

Came across this [1] - the Limburgh link viewpoint is slightly more 'origami'ed. (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

More conspiracy theories[edit]

That first one isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a properly-sourced story in one of the English-speaking world's leading newspapers. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)