Changes

== 1-10 ==

== 1-10 ==

'''1 - 2009, 12/17, 15:01-36:''' I made the following edits to the Barack Obama page, striving to simply report the hard facts while keeping opinionated adjectives out of the edits. The edits rested upon 8 major sources, 3 from the ''Illinois General Assembly'' (senate transcripts) and one each from the ''Associated Press'' (quoted on ''MSNBC''), ''FactCheck.org'', the ''Chicago Tribune'', the ''Houston Press'', and ''Time Magazine'', not exactly conservatively biased news sources. This was just an initial proposal, the later one included over 40 prominent sources, as will be shown:{{cquote|POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES

'''1 - 2009, 12/17, 15:01-36:''' I made the following edits to the Barack Obama page, striving to simply report the hard facts while keeping opinionated adjectives out of the edits. The edits rested upon 8 major sources, 3 from the ''Illinois General Assembly'' (senate transcripts) and one each from the ''Associated Press'' (quoted on ''MSNBC''), ''FactCheck.org'', the ''Chicago Tribune'', the ''Houston Press'', and ''Time Magazine'', not exactly conservatively biased news sources. This was just an initial proposal, the later one included over 40 prominent sources, as will be shown:

'''Support for 'Infanticide''''

 

Former 2004 Senate opponent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes Alan Keyes], who entered the 2004 Senate race after Obama's original opponent, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan Jack Ryan], dropped out due to a sex scandal, began accusing Obama just one day after entering the race of taking the 'slaveholder's position' because Obama termed children surviving late-term abortions "fetus]es]" and supported the right of hospitals to let them die of abandonment [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ 166]. Obama in 2003, before the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate Illinois Senate], questioned whether a bill known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could be summarized as follows:[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf 167]

:'''Support for 'Infanticide''''

"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Malley_(American_politician) Senator O’Malley], the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion abortion], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_abortion induced abortion], where the — the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child child], as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womb womb]. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of descriptions of one of the key concerns of the bill?"

 

:Former 2004 Senate opponent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes Alan Keyes], who entered the 2004 Senate race after Obama's original opponent, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan Jack Ryan], dropped out due to a sex scandal, began accusing Obama just one day after entering the race of taking the 'slaveholder's position' because Obama termed children surviving late-term abortions "fetus]es]" and supported the right of hospitals to let them die of abandonment [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ 166]. Obama in 2003, before the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate Illinois Senate], questioned whether a bill known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could be summarized as follows:[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf 167]

After Senator O'Malley answered in the affirmative, Senator Obama's reply included the following:

 

:"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Malley_(American_politician) Senator O’Malley], the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion abortion], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_abortion induced abortion], where the — the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child child], as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womb womb]. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of descriptions of one of the key concerns of the bill?"

"Number one, whenever we define a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_(fetal) previable fetus] as a person that is protected by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clause equal protection clause] or the other elements in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution Constitution], what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."

 

:After Senator O'Malley answered in the affirmative, Senator Obama's reply included the following:

During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

 

:"Number one, whenever we define a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_(fetal) previable fetus] as a person that is protected by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clause equal protection clause] or the other elements in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution Constitution], what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."

In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC NRLC] said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

 

:During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

'''Chicago Politics'''

 

:In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC NRLC] said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

As reported on by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune Chicago Tribune][http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story 198] and later the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Press Houston Press]' Todd Spivak[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full 199], Obama defeated early political opponents by challenging their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition petition] signatures. In this way he was able to defeat activist and popular incumbent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician) Alice Palmer], who had earlier supported him, when she was forced to hurriedly collect petition signatures before the filing deadline.  

 

:'''Chicago Politics'''

As Spivak points out about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative legislative] record of Senator Obama, "It's a lengthy record filled with core [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal liberal] issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year." Then Senate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Leader Majority Leader] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Jones Emil Jones] was approached by young Senator Barack Obama, who told him "You have the power to make a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senator United States Senator]."[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html 200]

 

:As reported on by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune Chicago Tribune][http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story 198] and later the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Press Houston Press]' Todd Spivak[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full 199], Obama defeated early political opponents by challenging their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition petition] signatures. In this way he was able to defeat activist and popular incumbent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician) Alice Palmer], who had earlier supported him, when she was forced to hurriedly collect petition signatures before the filing deadline.

During his last year in the Illinois Senate Obama sponsored 26 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(proposed_law) bills] that were passed into law. Jones had Obama craft legislation dealing with key issues in the news. But what is more, as reported on by Spivak, "Jones appointed Obama [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(legislative) sponsor] of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate seniority] than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. 'I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican Republican] committee [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairmen chairmen],' State Senator [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickey_Hendon Rickey Hendon], the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. 'Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.'"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332374186&oldid=332220645 Source 1]}}

:As Spivak points out about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative legislative] record of Senator Obama, "It's a lengthy record filled with core [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal liberal] issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year." Then Senate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Leader Majority Leader] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Jones Emil Jones] was approached by young Senator Barack Obama, who told him "You have the power to make a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senator United States Senator]."[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html 200]

:During his last year in the Illinois Senate Obama sponsored 26 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(proposed_law) bills] that were passed into law. Jones had Obama craft legislation dealing with key issues in the news. But what is more, as reported on by Spivak, "Jones appointed Obama [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(legislative) sponsor] of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate seniority] than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. 'I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican Republican] committee [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairmen chairmen],' State Senator [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickey_Hendon Rickey Hendon], the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. 'Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.'"

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332374186&oldid=332220645 Source 1]  

'''2. 2009, 12/17, 15:24:''' Scjessey posted on my Talk page:  His comment, which I naturally didn't take too kindly to, was:

'''2. 2009, 12/17, 15:24:''' Scjessey posted on my Talk page:  His comment, which I naturally didn't take too kindly to, was:

{{cquote|Just saw these edits while browsing RecentChanges. Excuse my bad language, but you've got to be f***ing kidding, right? I suggest you self-revert that stuff post haste! --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scjessey Scjessey] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scjessey talk]) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=332370915&oldid=332220645 Source 2]}}

:Just saw these edits while browsing RecentChanges. Excuse my bad language, but you've got to be f***ing kidding, right? I suggest you self-revert that stuff post haste! --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scjessey Scjessey] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scjessey talk]) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=332370915&oldid=332220645 Source 2]  

'''3 - 2009, 12/17, 15:41:''' Frank reverted these edits with a comment of "This requires discussion on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama the talk page] before being added": [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332375110&oldid=332374186 Source 3]

'''3 - 2009, 12/17, 15:41:''' Frank reverted these edits with a comment of "This requires discussion on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama the talk page] before being added":

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332375110&oldid=332374186 Source 3]

'''4 - 2009, 12/17, 15:45:''' GoodDay posted on my user talk page in Scjessey's new section:

'''4 - 2009, 12/17, 15:45:''' GoodDay posted on my user talk page in Scjessey's new section:

{{cquote|Your additions have been reverted. Recommend using the related talkpage, before making such additions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay GoodDay] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay talk]) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=next&oldid=332371811 Source 4]}}  

:Your additions have been reverted. Recommend using the related talkpage, before making such additions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay GoodDay] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay talk]) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=next&oldid=332371811 Source 4]}}  

'''5 - 2009, 12/17, 15:47:''' I was still editing the page and hadn't yet checked the history or my talk page, all I knew was my changes had been reverted (See 9 for more detail). So I made a new edit without the Chicago Politics section to see if this would be okay, since I considered The Born Alive one exceptionally well sourced as controversial given its prominence in the 2004 elections, major media controversy in 2008, and sourcing from Illinois Senate transcripts: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332376252&oldid=332375110 Source 5]

'''5 - 2009, 12/17, 15:47:''' I was still editing the page and hadn't yet checked the history or my talk page, all I knew was my changes had been reverted (See 9 for more detail). So I made a new edit without the Chicago Politics section to see if this would be okay, since I considered The Born Alive one exceptionally well sourced as controversial given its prominence in the 2004 elections, major media controversy in 2008, and sourcing from Illinois Senate transcripts:

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332376252&oldid=332375110 Source 5]

'''6 - 2009, 12/17, 15:49:''' Frank reverted the edit again with an edit comment of "([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDO Undid] revision 332376252 by Jzyehoshua ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]))", giving a link to the Talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332376627&oldid=332376252 Source 6]

'''6 - 2009, 12/17, 15:49:''' Frank reverted the edit again with an edit comment of "([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDO Undid] revision 332376252 by Jzyehoshua ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]))", giving a link to the Talk page.  

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332376627&oldid=332376252 Source 6]

'''7 - 2009, 12/17, 15:50:''' Frank posted on my Talk page with a comment of {{cquote|Please read the edit notice at the top of the edit page for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Barack Obama]. You've now reinserted material that was specifically removed with request to go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama Talk:Barack Obama] to discuss potential addition of the material. As the article is highly watched and under probation, further insertion of the same or similar material will earn you a block very quickly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank]  |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]  21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837 Source 7]}}

'''7 - 2009, 12/17, 15:50:''' Frank posted on my Talk page with a comment of  

:Please read the edit notice at the top of the edit page for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Barack Obama]. You've now reinserted material that was specifically removed with request to go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama Talk:Barack Obama] to discuss potential addition of the material. As the article is highly watched and under probation, further insertion of the same or similar material will earn you a block very quickly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank]  |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]  21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837  

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837 Source 7]}}

'''8 -  2009, 12/17, 15:55-16:28:''' I posted on GoodDay's Talk page in response to his comment on mine, thinking he'd been the one who had reverted my edits, because I hadn't yet checked the Obama page's history to see who had (something of a newbie mistake I'll admit). Scjessey, Frank, and GoodDay all responded there as well:

'''8 -  2009, 12/17, 15:55-16:28:''' I posted on GoodDay's Talk page in response to his comment on mine, thinking he'd been the one who had reverted my edits, because I hadn't yet checked the Obama page's history to see who had (something of a newbie mistake I'll admit). Scjessey, Frank, and GoodDay all responded there as well:

{{cquote|I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.

Sincerely,

:I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.

:Sincerely,

Jz --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Jz --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:Blah blah blah free speech blah blah censorship blah blah baby killers... -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::Blah blah blah free speech blah blah censorship blah blah baby killers... -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::Actually, Jz, I was the one who reverted your addition twice, and I left a message on your talk page about it. The revert of your edits has nothing to do with bias of any type. It's just that we need to develop a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS WP:CONSENSUS] before putting a whole new section in an article, especially one as highly-watched as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Barack Obama]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank]  |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]  21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

:::Actually, Jz, I was the one who reverted your addition twice, and I left a message on your talk page about it. The revert of your edits has nothing to do with bias of any type. It's just that we need to develop a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS WP:CONSENSUS] before putting a whole new section in an article, especially one as highly-watched as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Barack Obama]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank]  |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]  21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

:::Jz, you need your eyesighte tested, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)   

::::Jz, you need your eyesighte tested, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)   

::::If you didn't revert my additions, then why post on my talk page saying they were reverted? -.^ --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

:::::If you didn't revert my additions, then why post on my talk page saying they were reverted? -.^ --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

:::::Something to do, I suppose. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay GoodDay] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay#top talk]) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_17#Liberal_Bias.3F Source 8]}}

::::::Something to do, I suppose. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay GoodDay] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay#top talk]) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_17#Liberal_Bias.3F Source 8]}}

'''9 - 2009, 12/17, 16:00-18:''' I and Frank had a discussion on his Talk page in which I explained I'd still been editing the page and had only made my 2nd edit (See 5) because I hadn't seen his comments yet. He re-emphasized the discussion should occur on the Obama Talk page:

'''9 - 2009, 12/17, 16:00-18:''' I and Frank had a discussion on his Talk page in which I explained I'd still been editing the page and had only made my 2nd edit (See 5) because I hadn't seen his comments yet. He re-emphasized the discussion should occur on the Obama Talk page:

Liberal Bias?  

 

I recently made the following comment in regards to the moderator who removed my comment, once I got their message. The reason it was re-posted was I was still editing and hadn't yet seen the messages.  

:'''Liberal Bias?'''

:I recently made the following comment in regards to the moderator who removed my comment, once I got their message. The reason it was re-posted was I was still editing and hadn't yet seen the messages.  

"I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.

"I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Jz --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)"  

Jz --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)"  

However, to elaborate further, other politicians have political controversy sections. This to me seems a stalling tactic to eliminate any possibility of public criticism of Barack Obama. I have noticed this done in the media as well, an unusually discriminatory form of bias attempting to silence all speech that is critical of him. I have no problem with the section being changed, but if you are going to disallow any discussion of the controversy surrounding him, however unbiased or neutral it may be in tone, then please at least avoid the hypocrisy evident here, and remove similar sections from the profiles of all other politicians.

:However, to elaborate further, other politicians have political controversy sections. This to me seems a stalling tactic to eliminate any possibility of public criticism of Barack Obama. I have noticed this done in the media as well, an unusually discriminatory form of bias attempting to silence all speech that is critical of him. I have no problem with the section being changed, but if you are going to disallow any discussion of the controversy surrounding him, however unbiased or neutral it may be in tone, then please at least avoid the hypocrisy evident here, and remove similar sections from the profiles of all other politicians.

Joshua  

:Joshua  

The correct venue for this discussion, as I have already written [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=332375110 in] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837 three] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay&diff=prev&oldid=332378228 places] (including your own talk page), is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama Talk:Barack Obama].  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank]  |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]  22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

::The correct venue for this discussion, as I have already written [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=332375110 in] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837 three] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay&diff=prev&oldid=332378228 places] (including your own talk page), is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama Talk:Barack Obama].  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank]  |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]  22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332446310&oldid=332439690#Coverage_of_Controversies.3F Source 9]

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFrank&diff=332379082&oldid=332040109 Source 9]

'''10 - 2009, 12/17, 17:12:''' I made the following comment on the Talk page for Barack Obama, in "Coverage of Controversies" section, per Frank's request, emphasizing that I was willing to forego a controversies section and simply mention the controversies within the article elsewhere, per newer Wikipedia preferences:

'''10 - 2009, 12/17, 17:12:''' I made the following comment on the Talk page for Barack Obama, in "Coverage of Controversies" section, per Frank's request, emphasizing that I was willing to forego a controversies section and simply mention the controversies within the article elsewhere, per newer Wikipedia preferences:

Coverage of Controversies?  

I notice that conservative political profiles have mentioned on them scandals and public criticisms such as Palin's (McCain's this time last year was noticeably critical, unlike Obama's) yet not liberals. I imagine this to be because of the disproportionate impact liberals have on the internet, a fact, by the way, which is statistically provable. According to the 2009 political typology report by the Pew Research Center, there are 9 different profiles of voters, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat, and 3 Moderate. The 17% that are overwhelmingly socially liberal (19% of registered voters), and the only wealthy one of the 3 Democrat groups, are also the group of all 9 to go online most frequently for their news (37%, with no other group but the Moderate Upbeats, at 34%, close - no other group but the Republican Enterprisers is at even 26%). [http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945 http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945]  

:'''Coverage of Controversies?'''

At any rate, I am proposing the following section, although, I notice that Wikipedia is now changing to avoid sections labeled 'Political Controversies' even though I noticed another politician with just such a section just today, so perhaps it would be best to not label it that, but instead make it merely historical referenced, as part of his senate career:

 

:I notice that conservative political profiles have mentioned on them scandals and public criticisms such as Palin's (McCain's this time last year was noticeably critical, unlike Obama's) yet not liberals. I imagine this to be because of the disproportionate impact liberals have on the internet, a fact, by the way, which is statistically provable. According to the 2009 political typology report by the Pew Research Center, there are 9 different profiles of voters, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat, and 3 Moderate. The 17% that are overwhelmingly socially liberal (19% of registered voters), and the only wealthy one of the 3 Democrat groups, are also the group of all 9 to go online most frequently for their news (37%, with no other group but the Moderate Upbeats, at 34%, close - no other group but the Republican Enterprisers is at even 26%). [http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945 http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945]  

<br>'''Support for 'Infanticide''''

:At any rate, I am proposing the following section, although, I notice that Wikipedia is now changing to avoid sections labeled 'Political Controversies' even though I noticed another politician with just such a section just today, so perhaps it would be best to not label it that, but instead make it merely historical referenced, as part of his senate career:

Former 2004 Senate opponent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes Alan Keyes], who entered the 2004 Senate race after Obama's original opponent, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan Jack Ryan], dropped out due to a sex scandal, began accusing Obama just one day after entering the race of taking the 'slaveholder's position' because Obama termed children surviving late-term abortions "fetus]es]" and supported the right of hospitals to let them die of abandonment [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ 166]. Obama in 2003, before the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate Illinois Senate], questioned whether a bill known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could be summarized as follows:[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf 167]

"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Malley_(American_politician) Senator O’Malley], the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion abortion], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_abortion induced abortion], where the — the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child child], as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womb womb]. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of descriptions of one of the key concerns of the bill?"

After Senator O'Malley answered in the affirmative, Senator Obama's reply included the following:

"Number one, whenever we define a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_(fetal) previable fetus] as a person that is protected by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clause equal protection clause] or the other elements in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution Constitution], what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."

:'''Support for 'Infanticide''''

During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC NRLC] said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

:Former 2004 Senate opponent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes Alan Keyes], who entered the 2004 Senate race after Obama's original opponent, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan Jack Ryan], dropped out due to a sex scandal, began accusing Obama just one day after entering the race of taking the 'slaveholder's position' because Obama termed children surviving late-term abortions "fetus]es]" and supported the right of hospitals to let them die of abandonment [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ 166]. Obama in 2003, before the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate Illinois Senate], questioned whether a bill known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could be summarized as follows:[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf 167]

 

'''Chicago Politics'''

:"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Malley_(American_politician) Senator O’Malley], the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion abortion], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_abortion induced abortion], where the — the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child child], as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womb womb]. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of descriptions of one of the key concerns of the bill?"

As reported on by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune Chicago Tribune][http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story 198] and later the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Press Houston Press]' Todd Spivak[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full 199], Obama defeated early political opponents by challenging their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition petition] signatures. In this way he was able to defeat activist and popular incumbent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician) Alice Palmer], who had earlier supported him, when she was forced to hurriedly collect petition signatures before the filing deadline.  

As Spivak points out about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative legislative] record of Senator Obama, "It's a lengthy record filled with core [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal liberal] issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year." Then Senate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Leader Majority Leader] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Jones Emil Jones] was approached by young Senator Barack Obama, who told him "You have the power to make a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senator United States Senator]."[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html 200]

:After Senator O'Malley answered in the affirmative, Senator Obama's reply included the following:

During his last year in the Illinois Senate Obama sponsored 26 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(proposed_law) bills] that were passed into law. Jones had Obama craft legislation dealing with key issues in the news. But what is more, as reported on by Spivak, "Jones appointed Obama [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(legislative) sponsor] of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate seniority] than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. 'I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican Republican] committee [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairmen chairmen],' State Senator [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickey_Hendon Rickey Hendon], the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. 'Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.'"  

<br>==

:"Number one, whenever we define a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_(fetal) previable fetus] as a person that is protected by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clause equal protection clause] or the other elements in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution Constitution], what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."

<br>Now, all of those are mainstream criticisms of Barack Obama. I would like to see the reasoning behind those who would deny the inclusion of them. I would also ask, if there is a consensus to be achieved on whether to put this in, how long will it take, and how will it be decided? After all, if hypothetically, liberals were more obtuse in refusing to allow criticisms of Obama yet conservatives were able to agree to allow valid criticisms of conservative candidates, would that mean that just because one side is hypocritically unjust in disallowing a consensus that variable and discriminatory means should be permitted to coexist? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Source 10

:During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

:In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC NRLC] said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

:'''Chicago Politics'''

:As reported on by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune Chicago Tribune][http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story 198] and later the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Press Houston Press]' Todd Spivak[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full 199], Obama defeated early political opponents by challenging their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition petition] signatures. In this way he was able to defeat activist and popular incumbent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician) Alice Palmer], who had earlier supported him, when she was forced to hurriedly collect petition signatures before the filing deadline.

:As Spivak points out about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative legislative] record of Senator Obama, "It's a lengthy record filled with core [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal liberal] issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year." Then Senate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Leader Majority Leader] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Jones Emil Jones] was approached by young Senator Barack Obama, who told him "You have the power to make a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senator United States Senator]."[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html 200]

:During his last year in the Illinois Senate Obama sponsored 26 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(proposed_law) bills] that were passed into law. Jones had Obama craft legislation dealing with key issues in the news. But what is more, as reported on by Spivak, "Jones appointed Obama [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(legislative) sponsor] of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate seniority] than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. 'I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican Republican] committee [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairmen chairmen],' State Senator [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickey_Hendon Rickey Hendon], the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. 'Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.'"

:==

:Now, all of those are mainstream criticisms of Barack Obama. I would like to see the reasoning behind those who would deny the inclusion of them. I would also ask, if there is a consensus to be achieved on whether to put this in, how long will it take, and how will it be decided? After all, if hypothetically, liberals were more obtuse in refusing to allow criticisms of Obama yet conservatives were able to agree to allow valid criticisms of conservative candidates, would that mean that just because one side is hypocritically unjust in disallowing a consensus that variable and discriminatory means should be permitted to coexist? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332446310&oldid=332439690#Coverage_of_Controversies.3F Source 10]

== 11-20 ==

== 11-20 ==