Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-04-29T01:07:34Z

Theorymaker: /* Argument for Obama being a Muslim */

{{protect|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.

:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. "I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS." I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

== Flag Pin "insights" ==

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.''

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

*Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Michelle ==

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Religion... ==
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: "Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html

::<blockquote>
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
::</blockquote>
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== <1% Correction ==

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''
to
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's name in Arabic? ==

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels. It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version. I looked up "Hussein" and "Barack" on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place: '''
بارك حسین اوباما'''

I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

:''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."''

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

:''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== More religion ==

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::: "Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he "chose not to use" a bible.
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he "chose not to." There's no extant source to back this up
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts

:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying "there's no disputing" something isn't the same as proving it.

::::: As to the "real" oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a "superabundance of caution," not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A "seeker of truth" would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. ''"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard."'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==
I would like to add this text right before the "Campaign financing" secion:
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref> In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Good point. I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Obama & Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist "hero" (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Abandoned ==

This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Page should be unlocked==
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours. Communists at Wikipedia? That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere. I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author. I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Age template==

I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

: Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==
"We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==

On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Needed updates for Turkey speech, "no longer Christian", etc. ==

I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:

*update on Obama's "no longer a Christian nation" comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735]
*confirming that the "speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days" prediction came true (Turkey)
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the "Islam is not the enemy" type of content.

Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, "The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''." [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''"? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian.

:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree. A president's religious beliefs are significant. When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian? I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.

:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them. Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object. Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Yes he did, most of his polices were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, which was published before he came to power --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 20:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

*That's really ludicrous. A small, hardly read tome, little noticed or read, written by a fringe paper hanger, is hardly (in any era) publicizing something. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I do not think that your above description can be accurately applied to Mein Kampf. It consists of two volumes and a total of twenty seven chapters. Granted its popularity grew with its authors profile but it had already achieved 850,000 sales by 1933, the year in which Hitler rose to power. In any case Hitler can hardly be accused of trying to suppress circulation of the book, as is evidenced by the German government’s purchase and distribution of six million copies in the following nine year period.
In Mein Kampf Hitler sets out his ambitions, including the establishment of a new world order, expanding German territories in the east and exterminating the Jewish people. I must admit that I have not read Audacity of Hope, but would be extremely surprised to discover that it contained similar content. As such think it is a huge leap to try to draw parallels between the two leaders. --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 18:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==

The first sentence says he was '''allegedly''' born in Honolulu, except one of the references linking to this statement is a '''confirmation''' from state officials that he was born in Honolulu. And not to mention he's released his birth certificate. I think it is dishonest to have the word 'allegedly' here. I'm taking it out unless anyone objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Ok I changed it and it was instantly reverted back. It is a '''fact''' that Obama was born in Honolulu verified by many independent sources. Encyclopedias report '''facts''' not unproven allegations. I am reverting it back. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:25, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==

Can we have an honest discussion about this section. There may be something to it, but a lot of the bullets are a bit absurd.

The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:

* Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them."[16]

I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true. This doesn't make him Muslim.

* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]

This is misleading to say the least. Random statistics have no place in an encyclopedia. Does this 1% figure include all the Muslims in the middle east who do not convert to Christianity, it likely does and therefore has nothing to do with Obama who is an educated US citizen. -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

* Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[21]

If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context. He said "John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith". Meaning John Mccain had not himself accused Obama of being Muslim. If you watch a few seconds past this on the video he explains this.

* He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."[22]

Ok, it probably is "compatible with the modern world". Why is this evidence he is Muslim.

I could go on but I am getting tired of this. I'm not saying get rid of this section, but the claims should be factually correct and not be based on sweeping generalizations. Furthermore, why is this the first section in the article? Usually in an encyclopedia, the biographical content comes first. Early life and legal career and that stuff. And usually encyclopedia articles not the place for pushing your particular beliefs or rumor about somebody. I welcome any comments. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

: Paul, you have free will to reject that 2+2=4 too. I'm not going to spend my morning trying to convince you. [[Obama]] lied when he campaigned as a Christian. It may be years before you admit that to yourself, or you may never admit it, or you may admit it but actually like the [[deceit]]. Suit yourself, but the evidence is overwhelming.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Since you never addressed my concern about the ordering of the article I'll assume your in agreement. Biographical information first and then other issues. By the way, perhaps Obama lied about being a Christian, but if he did, its much more likely he's an Atheist than a Muslim. -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:54, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

: You assume wrong. Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.

: As to your theory, it just doesn't fit the evidence. Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent, and atheists' intellectual style is very different from Obama's. Feel free to start a different entry developing your theory, because it will become apparent quickly how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

It's not a truth, it's your theory that he is a Muslim, just as it is my theory that he is an Atheist. Obama says he is Christian, and who is to say otherwise? A person's faith is entirely a personal thing, you can never say for certain what he believes in, you have to go with what he has said in public, namely that he is Christian. Whether he might secretly be Muslim or Atheist is inconsequential, they are both theories, and neither theory belongs in an encyclopedia (which is fact based), end of story. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:31, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::And your claim that "Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent" is another sweeping generalization. Please tell me how that proves that he is a Muslim (or not an Atheist), because it's completely absurd

: By the way, Obama's father was an Atheist. I suspect that most people retain the religion (or lack thereof) of their parents. But either way, I'm not trying to make the case that he's an Atheist (or that he's not a Muslim). My point is that he says he's a Christian so anything else is just a theory which has no place in an encyclopedia article (unless this is not really an encyclopedia, but just a forum for pushing your conservative ideology). --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:40, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

: Paul, I completely agree with you. There is a difference between opinion and fact. While facts can be presented in different lights, opinions have no place in any encyclapedia. I would hope that conservapedia would at the very least not want opinion and speculation cluttering some of its most important pages. Thank you for representing rationality.

== Dog ==

Do we want to add anything about the Obamas' new dog (Portugese water dog)? --[[User:RobertT|RobertT]] 11:19, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion of [[User:Clintville]] ==

I believe these have been discussed on this talk page before, and settled after input from [[User:Aschlafly]]. In particular, I think it has been exposed that Snopes has been bit gullible in the past when it comes to liberal deceit. As far as the other two items go, though they are not convincing in a vacuum, we must consider them in context of all the other evidence. See the two or three talk page sections above this one, or the talk archives, for more discussion on this. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

----
== Kenya is not a muslim country. ==

According to the CIA World Fact Book, Kenya is 78% Christian.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html
So I have deleted the claim that Kenya is a predominantly muslim country. [[User:DanielVaccle|DanielVaccle]] 09:52, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Democratic Party

2009-04-29T00:50:22Z

Theorymaker:

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

:Yes. (Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.)--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 04:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== ic ==

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:ICK, no kidding, I like how the article is slanted to make it seem like all democrats are sinners and I bet that a equal number of republicans were slave owners {{Unsigned|User:MrRandom}}

::Your bet is on, my good man. I got $100 cash that says '''no Republicans''' were slave owners. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:05, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ulysses S. Grant owned a slave (http://www.american-presidents.org/2007/02/grant-was-slave-owner.html). E-mail me for the address to send the $100. --[[User:Nimble|Nimble]] 11:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them!
How's that for logic yankee!

You make no sense. Bush is clearly a lord of the sith for being so black and white in his quote

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

How about a more sound explaination. Just because the majority of the democrats voted against invading Iraq does not mean they support terrorism. The definition of terrorism is the use of force to coerce a particular ideology. Terrorism is not only in Iraq. There are terrorists in every nation of the world, including the U.S. The violent acts instigated from the KKK, IRA, or Freedom Fighters, is terrorism. As long as people feel oppressed and that something is unfair, there will always be terrorism.[[User:Idealist101|Idealist101]]

If you admit that Bush is not a terrorist for attacking another country he had no right to attack, then you also admit that people who did not support him in his illegal attack are not terrorists. His fault is clearly the greater one and we are excusing his, therefore the smaller fault (if it can even be called that) is clearly excusable. Enough said. [[User:Squiddy|Squiddy]]

== Use of AD ==

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

==Liberal Economics==
Liberal economics is not a '''political''' term.
Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses '''or''' deficits. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:: In this classical use of the term Ronald Reagan was an economic liberal. He supported deregulation, free trade, low taxes... That is basically what an "economic liberal" is. It has nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative" and is somewhat of an archaic term. To make matters worse most liberals are not "economic liberals" (they support tariffs and heavy handed forms of central planning to promote "fairness" and "economic justice"). [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, my idea of an "economic liberal" is Milton Friedman who saw no difference between "economics" and "politics" (like Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Friedrich Hayek who devoted most of their writing effort to things most people consider political theory). And while Reagan invoked Friedman for authority, he ignored virtually everything Milton Friedman advocated for government policy. For example, instead of legalizing drugs, Reagan renewed the initiative to add extra million Americans to the already large number of wards of the state. (Felons in prison.) Reagan, has have most Republicans, have ensured that corporations get free lunches by not needing to pay for the resources they deplete nor the damage their pollution does - even Friedman argued that pollution costs needed to assessed. In any case, I don't think the Democratic Party and Republican Party are measurably different in having no real economic theoretical basis for policy, with the apparent difference being Republicans claiming a theory that they reject when they make the proposals they want, while the Democrats just make their proposal; in the end, the Democratic policies are not inconflict with their claimed economic principles, while the Republicans are very clearly in conflict. [[User:Mulp|Mulp]] 00:46, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Have you read [[Adam Smith]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:48, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::See here for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Productive_and_unproductive_labour&diff=prev&oldid=106451910], Wikipedia quotes Smith,
:::::''"There is one sort of labour which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is bestowed; there is another which has no such effect. The former, as it produces a value, may be called productive; the latter, unproductive labour. Thus the labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master's profit. The labour of a menial servant, on the contrary, adds to the value of nothing. Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labour is bestowed. But the maintenance of a menial servant never is restored. A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. "''
:::::This is typical quote mining of Smith taught by every Marxist professor in the United States. I had to finish the quote,
:::::''A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. '''The labour of the latter, however, has its value, and deserves its reward as well."''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::You've nailed the issue on the head. Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin are two recent examples in history of liberals; as User:Order raised the issue here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal#Liberal_outside_of_the_US] comparing the American use of the term vs its use outside the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::So if little government intervention in the economy is the liberal stance on economics... does that make socialism the conservative viewpoint? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 23:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good question. That presupposes liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites. Now, in a purely cycnical sense, one can say that they are, just as sanity and insanity are polar opposites. This is one reason I personally do not subscribe to the spectrum theory.

:::::In economic theory, liberality and prodigality are polar opposites. In American political culture, "liberals" really are for the most part socialists; however in its American use it carries a connotation of "treasonous". This is absent outside of America, were many American allies, Britain or Israel for example, have Socialist governments. Not just Socialist laws or policies, actual Socialist parties in control of government. So if we were to apply that American understanding of the term, i.e. that a "Socialist" is "anti-American", how do we explain close allies being "anti-American"?

:::::Thus, American political vocabulary is all screwed up. And all we can really say for sure is both terms, liberal and socialist, are abused and neither conveys a clear meaning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== By Jefferson? ==

Democratic Party founded by Jefferson... Humm. I thought he founded the Democratic-Republican party which was actually referred to by contemporaries as the "Republican" party. The modern Democratic party is the result of several splinter and transitions just like the Republican Party. Arguably both parties are splinters from Jefferson's original party, just the Republican party went through the transition to the Whig party first. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You should learn how to place information in a talk page appropriately
::And you should learn to make an account and sign your entries so as not to appear as a cowardly wiseguy. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:56, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Seriously, I thought I would clean up the presentation seeing as I can't in good conscience touch the content... but... GEE WHIZ these sources are awful. A column? Cheesy little websites with election trivia? Pictures of maps? This is the best we could do? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Remove the polling data, it's worthless ==

Opinion polls are not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, except maybe to provide background information for a specific political event, such as an election. If someone is reading this article two years from now, do you think the democrat Congress's approval rating in the second week of April 2007 will be relevant to them? Of course not. I'm not going to summarily remove it now, but I suspect most intelligent people will agree with me that it doesn't belong.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm more than happy to let it stay...provided we add the same polling data to the Republican Party page and the George W. Bush page. We are supposed to be even-handed here, right?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, we're supposed to be writing educational, clear, and concise articles. Polling data is useless in almost any context. I vote to remove it. Who's with me?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree. I'm actually taking a Public Opinion course right now in college, and it's a very important gauge of historical support and for looking back and seeing '''why''' policies were enacted. Plus, once it's no longer April or whatever, we can remove it anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well your public opinion course is probably taught by a bunch of liberals who live and die by opinion polls. And which enacted policies does the poll mentioned in this article help explain? None. My point is, if they are not being used to help understand the political climate surrounding a particular event, they are utterly useless because they're out of date not long after they're released. So unless someone wants to keep this article updated with current polling information until the end of time, there is no reason to have it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The first major expansion to [[Iraq War]], for example, had absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with the war, it's causes, it's course, etc. It was an insertion of extensive polling data [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=prev&oldid=33991] A lenghty edit war ensued, and the material not only is still in the article, it has its own subhead.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq_War#Opinion_polls] Because opinion polls are obviously important to some editors not only in giving meaningful context, but in creating meaningful context, this material should stay in this article and be updated periodically. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:19, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I would agree if the polls were used in any meaningful context in this article, but they aren't. What is the point of saying that according to some research poll, 50% of Americans currently identify with the democrat party? Or that as of 4/18, 53% of Americans support the democrat Congress. Are these numbers rising? Falling? Are they a cause or effect of the 2006 election, or both? There's no context. People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The point is, polling obviously is important to many contributors. They evidently either make personal judgements based upon polling data, or view it as foundational to any public arguement or discourse. And it's hard to argue with statistics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

#1, your ad hominem attack on a professor you don't even know the name of (and whose political views I don't even know, because the course is taught in a nonpartisan manner) has no bearing whatsoever on this debate, and #2, I never said that the data should ever be anything more than temporary and relevant. Do we refuse to list the governors of states because this changes over time? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you think that calling a professor a liberal is an attack, I guess that's your problem. But your ridiculous question about governors just weakens your argument. There is only one governor of a state at any given time, but there are dozens of opinion polls which rarely come up with the same results. So adding opinion polls willy nilly in an encyclopedia article does nothing but detract from its intent of being factual.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wait a second. This article includes the slanted weasel words "Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism[11] and insufficiently patriotic" ... they are cited, mind you, but aren't these attacks pretty much the same as opinion polls? Why not link to the copious amounts of info that says Democrats are quite patriotic and serious about terror? Why choose these two extremely biased opinion links? Are these really "facts" worth building an encyclopedia entry around? --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:27, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

===Please===
The sentence: '''Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 53.8% disapproval and a 36.8% approval rating according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 04/05 - 04/18. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18]'''
This is the "Congressional job Approval poll" not the "democratic congress approval poll". [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:Hmm, let's see, who controls the US House of Reps & the Senate.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough...let us also include the pre-election numbers then '''shall we'''? Based on the Fox News Poll of 10-11-2006 Approve:31% Disapprove:63% Spread:-32% ( from the same source). [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:What those numbers show is the misreporting on GW Bush's poll numbers. Both Bush & the Democratic Congress suffer from negative polls, 60/40. IOW, people do not disapprove of Bush personally, people disapprove of the performance of government in general. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::The poll should be taken out because it doesn't relate specifically to the Democratic Party. The poll is talking about the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter that the Democrats are in control of Congress. If you were able to get a statistic about just the Democrat approval rating in Congress than you might be able to use it, but as it is right now some of the people in the poll are saying how they don't approve what the Republicans are doing in Congress too. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 13:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==History==

The Treaty of Ghent called for everything to return to the ''Status Quo Antebellum.'' In other words, a draw. The text of the treaty can be read in the ''United States Statutes at Large'' found here <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=231> --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:While ''Status Quo Antebellum'' referes to territorial disputesd, it does not refere to other objectives, American complaint of British interference on the high seas. So while Britain failed in it achieving its objectives it can be considered defeated. Whereas the US achieiving its stated aims, it can be considered victorious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Most good college level textbooks (Tindall and Shi, and Ayers, Gould, et. al.) have the war as a draw. The two nations agreed to end the conflict, leave prewar boundries in place, and return prisoners. All other questions were to be settled in the future. It would be difficult to see this as anything other than a draw.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, good points. No problem. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

To whoever keeps changing this part. Follow the link above and read the treaty.

==Needed citations==
This article needs some citations. I decided to help out by flagging some of the facts that needed to be supported. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversions ==

In reply to Johnl's questions for the reverts, the reason is obvious: FDR failed to lead the U.S. out of the depression, instead keeping the U.S. in a depression until WWII. Nor did FDR lead us to victory in WWII. FDR was dying in 1945.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:He died I think over a month or two before VE day.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Shouldn't it at least be mentioned that he led the nation during important battles; Normandy, Midway, etc.? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Looks like I am wrong. He died a little less than a month before VE day. But he was incapacitated a while before then.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:00, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

FDR led the US for most fo the war.
:WWII was basically between the Soviet Union & Germany; if anybody "won" the War, it was the Soviet Union. 88% of all casualties in WWII were in the Soviet Union. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:Further, FDR did not "lead the US out of the Depression"; the [[New Ordeal]] (a euphemism for "New Deal") lasted until 1949. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmph you know I'm almost afraid to say this, becaunse I'm not the type tostart screaming conspiracy, however it does seem as if this is a blatant attempt to make a DEMOCRAT president seem as if he was completely unimportant and totally irrelevant to the nation during perhaps the biggest and most influential crisis in modern history of which we (theUnited States) were the deciding factor in. Come on... So FDR was a Democrat. So what. To make it seem as if he wasn't all that important (in apositive manner) is a bit silly. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:00, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:True; the planet would indeed be a different place if FDR didn't get elected. Some credit should be given to the courageous souls who supported him, without whom we'd all be eating sauerkraut and sushi right now. Why I just read how [[Strom Thurmond]] supported FDR for a fourth term. [http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_wtm.html] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:11, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Even when you're being sarcastic it is nice to see acknowledgment and validation of his positive importance. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:41, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, FDR & the Kennedy's prove the falacy of Marxism; the Roosevelt's and the Kennedy's prove that rich aristocrats who never did a stitch of labor in thier life, that inherited it all by exploiting the poor, actually (a) may have a function and (b) usefulness on this planet. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You're not dragging me into a loaded "debate." I don't agree with your opinion on what you just mentioned, and I find it all too convenient that you chose two figures I recently did critiques of their articles on here. But I'm not biting. Honestly I'd expect better of a sysop. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:08, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Huh? Wha...? Please show me where the above analysis of the Roosevelt's, Kennedy's & Marxist theory is in error. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:40, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::P.S. No need to make personal comments directed at me over this. I apologize, my faith prohibits me from worshipping human beings; that many Democrats and liberals have looked to the messianic vision of the Roosevelt & Kennedy families for generations is a matter of record. Please, let's not allow anti-religious bigotry into this discussion. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]]

Um... if FDR was president when the depression ended, regardless of the reason wouldn't that techincally make it correct to state that he DID lead us out of it...? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:23, 24 August 2008 (EDT) Oh wait I'm sorry, I keep forgetting FDR was the biggest commie there ever was save for maybe Marx. How silly of me.

== Religion section ==

For some reason, Jim Webb of VA is listed in this section as a catholic, he is not. He is protestant of some sort. Someone should put in the name of another prominant catholic senator. [[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 10:14, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexual section==
I removed the bit about the hate crime law making it illegal to criticize homosexuality, as there is no basis for this. Some wingnut saying "this law will make it illegal to say bad things about gays" (which is all the citation said) does not mean hate crime law will make it illegal to say bad things about gays. It wouldn't trump the first amendment. People are still allowed to be racist, in spite of current hate crime legislation. This won't change when it comes to homosexuality either. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:19, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

#You shouldn't have deleted the sources, just because you disagree with how they're interpreted.
#Unless you are completely new to wiki collaboration, you already know that [[edit war]]ring is counter-productive. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:30, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for the block. Now, the article still has major problems, and the sentence I removed is a blatant violation of item #6 on [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia| this list]]. I think some compromise phrasing can be worked out. I don't mind the conservative slant on the article as a whole (it is Conservapedia after all); everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. I'm going to take a shot at rephrasing the problematical part without removing the source, as it were. I'd appreciate not getting blocked for it. If there is a problem let's discuss it here. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 21:15, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Actually we got about a half dozen or a dozen different cites that all say the samething, i.e. the [[110th Congress]] is seriously considering criminalizing the preaching of the Gospel. So if it's a nuke arms race on sources you want, you will get it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:21, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I'd be very curious to see such sources, particularly if they can actually cite actual proposed legislation. The "source" currently given does nothing but quote a random critic. If Michael Moore jumps up on a table and says "The Republicans want to send immigrants to slaughterhouses!" I would hardly think it appropriate to add that Republicans condone the mass murder of foreigners to their article. We need more than the someone-says-so approach. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 21:30, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
This compromise is meaningless:
*''although a law passed by Congress would have no power to overrule the freedom of expression guaranteed by the [[First Amendment]]''
Of course "a law passed by Congress" would have no power to do anything unless the President signs it, or unless a two/thirds majority overrides a veto. Both cases are highly unlikely. Everybody knows, this Bill does not stand a WP:SNOW. But ''this is'' the "Democratic Party" mainspace, and criminalizing the Gospel as a meaningless gesture to a valued constituency ''is'' or ''was'' the position taken by Democratic Congressional leadership. There is no way to poo-poo that now that it is plain as day that Democratic Congresspeople '''lied''' to thier constituents when they (a) ran for office, (b) introduced a Bill they knew the President would never sign, and (c) they would never garner enough GOP votes to override a Presidential veto.

SOooooooo......DNC rot just will not play here in CP. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:Please prove that the Democratic Party has introduced legislation "criminalizing the Gospel". And are you saying it is dishonest to introduce a bill if you don't have enough votes to override a veto? I can't imagine you are, because that is a ridiculous statement to make, but I can't see how whether or not they have 2/3 of Congress is relevent to the actual contents of the hate crime bill, which is what is being discussed here. The issue is not whether or not the bill's status in regards to WP:SNOW but what the bill actually says. Give us a source. A ''real'' source. If you don't want the bit about the First Amendment in there, fine, whatever, but at the moment all that has been established is that ''critics allege'' the bill would prohibit criticism of homosexuality. To say otherwise blatantly contradicts the statement made that "We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts", which is ''exactly'' what this article is doing. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 21:46, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

::Here's some cites:
::*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
::*[[Hate crime#References]]
::*Plus what's on the mainspace here. And to trash them, you are going to have to do better than, "those are just a bunch of paranoid, intollerant, right-wing ''[[Dominionism#The_.22Christer.22_controversy|Christer]]'' sites." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:53, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:::You'e sending me to another Conservapedia article as a ''source''? Oh come on! As for the references at those pages, some are the same as the ''source'' here, and amount only to the say-so of another critic. One is about a legislation in Canada, which, last I checked, was out of the jurisdiction of the US Congress. Only one referenced any particular incident at all, a single event in Philly wherein people were charged with an assortment of crimes. That the charges were thrown out just shows it was a case of wrongful arrest, not of hate crimes criminalizing the Bible. While wrongful arrest and misintepretation of law are serious issues, they are not the issue in this article. Where are the primary sources? Where are excerpts from hate crime bills that make preaching the Bible illegal? Let's hold the articles here to some standards, okay? Even Wikipedia does a better job than this. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:15, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::::oowww low blow...ok, since you've been upfront & civil about it, and have addressed some specific valid points, I'll get the information for you. Not sure I can do it all tonite, but I'll put it on the front burner for the AM if I can't do it tonite.

::::The point you raised about jounralists opinions is valid, but most of the cites we've linked to in these three entries are not simply editorial opinions, the are direct references to persons and experts involved in these issues. And a further note, we also have the views of minority members of Congress which say basically the same thing. And of course, we can also look at the exact language of the Bill, which is quoted in part in some of these cites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:01, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was not meant to be a low blow. If ever I were to ask for a source on Wikipedia and I were pointed to another Wikipedia article I would naturally rake that user over the coals. Wikipedia does have an strict policy on reliable sources, although exactly what sources can be considered reliable is a subject of endless debate. I'm not sure what the policy here is, but I suppose there must be one. In any case, I would assume that not taking journalists for their word would apply to many other professions as well, particularly partisan hacks from either side of the aisle. Both Democrats and Republicans are perfectly capabile of demonizing the stance of the opposition on any number of controversial issues, and taking their word as fact is not going to aid the credibility of this site. As of now it has been established that critics do allege that hate crime legislation would prohibit criticism of the homosexual lifestyle, but I see no evidence that the legislation would do this. I'd like to be able to put the "critics allege" bit back in (minus the bit on the 1st amendment, if you're so against it) without getting banned for "edit warring" without warning. And let us not equate someone shouting "Die, Fag! Die!", which may be considered either protected speech or a threat on someone's life (and a subject worthy of debate), with reciting passages from the Bible about Sodom and Gomorrah (which ''is'' protected speech, regardless of what critics allege hate crime legislation says, or even what the bill itself says). The former, if it were addressed by hate crime law, could hardly be considered a blanket ban on all speech critical of homosexuality. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 23:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Actually I was just too lazy to cut out references links, so i just pointed you that direction with those articles. As to WP's RS, this makes me laugh, because truth be told, I've had somewhat of an impact on creation of WP:ATT, WP:BLP, as well as WP:V being rewritten, and modifications to RS's. While in theory they contain many good guidelines, what's faulty in them is their not being evenhandedly enforced. And this goes for WP:NOR, NPOV and few others as well.

::::::Me personally, I'd recommend [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#External_criticism:_authenticity_and_provenance this] as a guideline. The problem with WP's policies are, they were written by somebody who learned Journalism ethics in Journalism School, and we know what the value of that is. The state of Journalistic ethics only deteriorates more year after year. Journalists make a mockery of their pretense to it, and in WP you have people with no ethics whatsoever not even pretending to be ethical. So I don't have a high opinion of WP's or for that matter any kind of broadcast or written Journalism standards at all. I'm only interested in historiography, the historical method, and rules of evidence.

::::::In the morning, I'll take a look at the entire issue. It seems to go beyond just hate crimes speech,and homosexuals are already defined as a protected class. But as we demonstrated on the [[Talk:Homosexuality]] page yesterday, the Law doesn't even clearly define what a homosexual is. The last homosexual homicide in the US was in 2004, according to FBI stats, yet it was neither a male or female who was murdered. So unless the killer was another transexual (i.e. "the same", as what is commonly known as the meaning of the term "homo") creating a protected class & requiring the compiliation of statisitcs of hate crimes is just more pure garbage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Okay, everyone's had ample time to come up with anything to support the statement in question and no one has done so. All the single citation says is that opponents argue that the hate crimes legislation would prohibit criticism of homosexuality (I'm still not sure how get this interpretation, we have hate crime legislation covering race and religion in many places and it's still not a crime to say bad things about blacks, Jews, and other minorities). So I'm going to add "opponents argue" to the beginning of the statement. I really don't see how this can be a controversial edit. If you're going to blatantly say that unlike Wikipedia (where does Wikipedia do this exactly?) Conservapedia does not state the opinions fo journalists as fact, you should really stick by it. And I would hope that it wouldn't be taken to mean that the opinions of anyone who isn't a journalist ''can'' be stated as fact. That would be downright silly. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:"Experts"? Is that really the best you can do? sigh. Well, I'll add "some" to that. Clearly not all "experts" agree on that statement. The single "source" certainly doesn't support that assertion. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

===gas tax===

:I also added that it was "certain" Democrats who proposed a 50 cent increase in the gas tax. From the article cited it appears it was only one (and I'm quite sure the proposal has gone nowhere). Hardly a part of the overall Democrat agenda. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::It's not really "certain Democrats," it's the Democratic Leadership that proposed a 50 cent per gallon gas tax increase which impacts poor people trying to hold and job and get to work most. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:07, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::According to the article it was a single committee chair (admittedly of the committee most relevant to the issue); saying "Democratic Leadership" seems to imply Pelosi, Reid, and other high-ranking Democrats supported it, and I see no evidence that they did. {{Unsigned|PortlyMort}}

::::As a general rule Committe Chairs do not go against the wishes of the Majority Leader or Speaker, particularly in the House where rules are different (in the Senate, Committee Chairs get thier position by Seniority, in the House it is by appointment, and only trusted Chairs who will do the bidding of the Speaker get the appointment). If Conyers was going against Pelosi & Hoyer, it would be a big news item. Thier silence and the media's silence, only gives them cover, whereas if it's an unpopular measure, they got the fall guy set up and it becomes the blame game. And in the blame game, it will come back to Pelosi, Hoyer, et al the House Democratic Conference Leadership. The Committee Chairs do not act on their own. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Okay, I'm not expert here, but it seems to me that committee chairs have quite a bit of independent power ''within their committees''. Now, if the measure were ever to get out of committee (and if it does I'll eat my hat and and add another 15,000 articles to Conservapedia personally) that would be a different story. This looks like posturing to me. The whole idea of raising taxes on gasoline and using the money to fund alternative energy in an effort to get us off foreign oil (and oil in general, eventually) has been widely discussed among liberals. (They often make comparisons to Europe, where gas is enormously more expensive, but ignore factors like the geographic differences between a small country like Britain and a large one like the U.S., among other things.) If they could find a way to apply it just to the rich the concept would probably have some support in Congress, but they know that this would screw the poor much more, and would send Congress back to the Republicans in a heartbeat. This seems to be a way to let Dingell propose it, let it die quickly in committee so they can appeal to the liberal base by looking like they're doing something without actually having to enact anything or deal with the consequences. Pelosi would not want to touch this; Dingell, one of the longest-serving Congressmen in history, is pretty safe. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:55, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::All that dances around the fact that (a) the Democratic Leadership proposed a consumption tax at a point in time that will disproportionately hurt the same very people whom allegedly, according to themselves and media allies, they were elected to help, and (b) we are not here to promote lies and coverups. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::And ''that'' dances around the fact that the "Democratic Leadership" you cite is a single person: Rep. Dingell. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:24, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::There is no indication he's acted on his own, going public, since Pelosi, Hoyer & whatsisname the whip haven't rejected it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Have they indicated they ''support'' it? Seems were both drawing conclusions here. You assume their apparent silence is tacit approval; I don't, since they obviously don't comment on every item brought up in every committee. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:34, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Oh, so Dingell goes public with an idea to drag the poor over the coals which needs a majority in the House, Pelosi ''et al'' remain mum on the concept, and that means she opposes it. Don't think so... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::You don't ''think'' so, but you don't ''know''. That's my point. And what has Bush et al said about it? Nothing? I guess they approve too maybe? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::In reading these articles (probably in WP, too) you will see a primary characteristic of difference between Dem & Repub, left & right, lib & conserv, is on the tax issue. Dems almost ''always'' under ''all circumstances'' advocate and promote higher taxation. Repubs almost always under all circumstances advocate tax cuts. It is not surprising, therefore, after 12 years in the wilderness, one of the first things Dems would do is propose tax increases.
:::::::::::::As to the absurd reference to Bush, what? Bush is of like-mind with Pelosi ''et al''? Go ahead, promote that idea if you wish; let's see if you get any beleivers. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Typo==
"Crongressional." Can't edit the article for whatever reason. [[User:ZCE|ZCE]]
:Fixed. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:11, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

== Democrat Party ==

Why are we using the term "Democratic Party"? The preferred, non-liberal-biased term is "Democrat Party" (or "Democrat congressman", or "Democrat Agenda", etc.) "Democratic" is bad because it evokes small-d democratic (which they are not), whereas "Democrat" emphasizes "rat" (which they are). In fact, using the loaded term "Democratic Party" is one of the main stream media's indications of liberal bias.-- why do we emulate? Can we get consensus for change?

:Wow, I bet you're real proud of yourself. Don't quit your day job though. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:25, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (seriously your humor is contrived and boring)
:Nah. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:The official name of the party is clearly the "Democratic Party." No point in stooping to factual inacuracies.

:To Mr. Comedian who can't sign his name: Wow, I bet you're real proud of yourself. Don't quit your day job though. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:25, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (seriously your humor is contrived and boring)

== history ==

I wrote the history sections and previously posted some of it to Wikipedia and Citizendium. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
==drop florida stuff==
The Florida stuff is not very important now so I dropped it [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:05, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== Some Factual Innacuracies ==

There were a few things I noticed on the main page that I thought should be changed (just for the sake of factual correctness)
- 4 of the last 10 presidential terms have been democrats, not 3.
- the cost of the proposed healthcare bill is 65 billion, not 1 trillion
- there is the contradiction with gay marriage. Under "gay rights" it says dems don't support Gay Marriage, but right under that it says they do.
- Again, for the sake of honesty, the original (Jeffersonian) Democratic Party never became "defunct."