Talk:Obamaisms

Most of these I've heard before, and I'm fine with their inclusion. However, there's some I couldn't find any record of:

• “Our troops fight and die in 20-degree heat to give Iraq's leaders the space to agree, but they aren't filling that space.” (the actual quote I found says 120 degrees instead)
• "If I talked to Iran, I'm going to tell them, 'You should develop a nuclear weapon...." (only found it in a discussion forum, not a very reliable source)

Because I could find no evidence of these, I have removed them. Also, I think it might be good to include a disclaimer of sorts similar to what's in the Bushism article (e.g. politicians always flub lines, etc.). --KevinS 21:15, 17 January 2009 (EST)

• Commodore/KevinS....please refrain from acting as judge and jury. Your proper recourse for this kind of situation is to have posted here to Senior Administrator Ed Poor, asking for the references, if you could not find them. As for your suggestion about flub lines....you did the same, making a suggestion and then simply going ahead. Liberals do that, and say the lack of opposition is acquiescence, when it is anything but. I hope this clears things up for you. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 22:19, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I thought I'd followed the editing etiquette, and I certainly meant no harm. Also, I'm not sure what you're accusing me of with your comment about flubbing lines; the suggestion I made and the action I took were two unrelated issues. I felt I had made the case for my actions. Oh well. Any more thinly veiled insults for me? KevinS 22:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)

• Veiled insults, Commodore KevinS? About flubbing lines, what I meant was you make a suggestion here, and without allowing any time for response, you add it. What is the point of posting here, asking/making a suggestion for an addition, if you intend to go ahead and do it immediately? You might have some authorities at other places to make nasty comments to Administrators, you don't here. The liberal tactic of simply applying the worst spin possible to any comment, merely to cause disruption and/or dissension won't be tolerated. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 15:14, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Hey, you should mention my old user name again. You haven't done it enough in your last couple of comments.

The thing is, I make a calm explanation of a problem that I saw and attempted to fix and get an overly hostile response out of nowhere. With this kind of attitude I probably just wasted my time making an explanation. KevinS 15:28, 18 January 2009 (EST)

• Ahhh, that old liberal fall-back of anyone questioning what you do is an act of being "hostile"! Instead of just explaining, you throw in a new attack! I mention your old user name because the act of changing it here, using it (the original name) elsewhere to attack and mock CP is deceit. Gods speed to you! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 15:57, 18 January 2009 (EST)

If there is no citation for the 20 degree heat, let's remove it. Because you inserted a line saying 120 degree heat, which is not a gaffe. I am changing it to 20 degrees, and if we can't find a citation we'll get rid of it later. AddisonDM 22:46, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I didn't change the line to 120. Unless you mean I mentioned it on this talk page, I wasn't sure which you meant.

What I meant was, the line "Our soldiers fight and die in 120-degree heat" is not a gaffe, and yet is included in this list. I'm saying it should either be "20-degree heat" which is what the gaffe is supposed to be, or the whole should be removed if he never actually said it. AddisonDM 17:20, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Fine, Addison....my only point was to allow time for someone to respond when asking, as the removed user did, before removing Admin edits. Thanks for helping clear this up. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 21:04, 18 January 2009 (EST)

• Just wondering: On the linked Bushisms page, it states it is a term coined by liberals and the article is also placed under the category of Liberal bias. From which political group is "Obama-isms" coined by and does this need mentioning?
• Also, is there a reason why one is hyphenated while the other isn't? Maybe it's better to gain some consistency in these respects. SJames 21:36, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Okay...I guess the term comes from conservatives! It's sort of reverse Bushisms. It's hyphenated because without the hyphen it would look odd: Obamaisms. The two vowels don't fit well. Google it with a hyphen and you'll get quite a few results. AddisonDM 22:13, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Mockery

This article is mockery and should be deleted. --Brendanw 00:21, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Merge idea

I propose that we merge this article and the Bushisms into a to-be-created article called "Political Gaffes" or something along those lines, to include such as when Nancy Pelosi said that 500 million Americans would lose their jobs without the stimulus package. --JY23 21:07, 18 February 2009 (EST)

That's an interesting idea. I'll think about it. AddisonDM 13:47, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Sourcing and chronology

We should try to provide a link for each entry as it occurs and give a date. This may be a project for the whole community to get involved to keep a catalogue in a running sequence. Rob Smith 12:53, 19 August 2009 (EDT)