Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Bushism

2009-02-07T01:42:15Z

JohnKite: /* Mockery */

Hello, Ed Poor! I wanted to ask you about the examples you deleted. I understand the last one is unsourced (but easily verifiable). However, the third one ("If you want to help, give cash money to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army") had an undisputable source. Why did you delete it, exactly? -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 15:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could explain how it's a Bushism, for those of us who are a little slow? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:03, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, and sorry. It is redundant, that is, more than is needed, desired or required. Repetitive, verbose, superfluous, tautologous. -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 16:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I know what redundant means, thanks.... Are you trying to say that it's a Bushism because he said "cash money"? That seems to be the only redundant part, and it's not exactly a made up phrase. Or am I missing something?

:::By the way, I agree with you on "misunderestimate;" it's easily the most famous Bushism. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:36, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Distortion ==

Jenkins, you have completely distorted this article. By general consensus, a Bushism is a word or a phrase misspelled or incoherently said by George W. Bush. I know he has many virtues, but he's not the Great Communicator, like President Reagan was, or at least plain spoken. -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 16:46, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:...*blinks* I'm sorry, should I put back the statement that Bush stated that liberals think that every misused word is a Bushism? Or should I put back the stuff about the truth most likely being that liberals are meanie poopie heads who are biased against Bush? I'm willing to discuss, but as a disclaimer, I think Bush makes more slip-ups than most others and that it's not just liberal bias. I'm merely trying to bring the article away from pure opinion without being reverted for being too liberal.
:If you tell me which section is too pro-Bush, I'll gladly help to improve it! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::I give up. I guess I'll be banned before I'll say more about this. --[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 08:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:::You know, the thing that makes me the most aggravated here is that I'm among the ''last'' people on this entire site to discourage open communication. I got blocked myself quite a few times now for talk page things, so trust me, we're pretty much on the same side.
:::As such, I'm also fairly amused that you seem to think I'm too conservative or even a Bush-lover. A short time after you made the initial post, somebody else called me a deceitful liberal.
:::Anyway. I'll go through the phrases I changed and explain my reasoning:
:::*''Bushism is the term coined by liberals to refer to any word or phrase that they think is either (1) incoherent, (2) misspelled, or (3) idiotic, as stated by George W. Bush.''
:::**Aside from neutral word-changing to fit the flow, I only restructured it. The "as stated by GWB" at the end of the sentence gave me the impression that it refers to the statement of the sentence so far (that it's an expression coined by liberals) instead of what it should refer to (the phrases themselves).
:::*''The implication is that Bush mangles the language significantly more than other politicians.''
:::**This is nothing more than highly suggestive interpretation without a source. Sort of like saying "X said Y, hoping to trick Z into doing something" while only giving a source for the "X said Y" part. I reworded it slightly to avoid the "implication is" part.
:::*''The truth is more likely that the liberal media gleefully collect and publicize his verbal gaffes disproportionately.''
:::**I could have changed it to "The truth more likely is that GWB has the IQ of toast," and it would have followed the commandments exactly as much as the original sentence: Not at all. Unsourced speculation about truth, combined with bold claims and accusations that are practically impossible to prove, should generally be avoided. I replaced it with the fairly uncontroversial claim that everybody occasionally screws up, and an explanation attempt about Bush maybe being in the spotlight more often because he's... well... more often in the spotlight in general.
:::Yes, it's unsourced. Yes, it's still part speculation (however, the claims are not as bold as before and less controversial in my eyes). No, I wouldn't mind ''at all'' if somebody removed the entire second paragraph. As a matter of fact, I would've removed the entire paragraph myself, but I didn't want to provoke an edit war.
:::As far as I am aware, there is no reliable source discussing ''why'' we have the term "Bushism", but not "Putinism", "Merkelism", "Clintonism", or whatever else. If we actually enforced the "Must source stuff like that, yo!" commandment, the entire non-example part of the article (both the version we have now and the version I edited) would have to be nuked. There are sources that confirm that the term exists, and there are sources that describe what the term refers to, but that's it, from what I know. Even the "coined by liberals" part is unsourced speculation right now.
:::We can speculate that it's because Bush's an idiot, we can speculate that it's because the Evil Liberal Media hypes it, or we can speculate that Bush is in fact an Alien clone with a broken language module. I tried to tone done the accusation without stirring the waters too much. If you think you can do better, be my guest. I most likely won't stop you. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:59, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you very much :) [[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 14:55, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

==???==

Can someone please explain to me why cataloging Bush's mistakes is liberal bias and deciet, while you all have pages of mistakes that Obama makes? isn't that a bit of a double standard?

-[[User:noahH|noahH]]

George W. Bush is the siting United States President and should be treated with respect. That's why. -[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:If Obama is elected should he be treated with the same respect? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 16:42, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry Ferno, but you sound like a liberal, you should read the article on [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. [[User:JamesRa|JamesRa]] 16:49, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I've read it, I wasn't impressed. I think my question applies to both sides of the political spectrum. The Right defends Bush and the Left defended Bill Clinton with the same reason; "He deserves our respect because he is the president". '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 16:54, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

If Obama is elected, and that is a big IF, then I would say depending on his behavior he should be respected as well. Clinton did things to disrespect and fowl the office of President so his criticism was warranted. President Bush has not done anything immoral or otherwise to deserve disrespect from his citizens. -[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

==A possible explanation...==

The page says: "A possible explanation for the existence of the term is that George Bush, being the President of the United States, simply attracts more attention (both by supporters and detractors worldwide) than others.". Isn't that just speculation? Should it really be a part of a fact page? Also, why isn't the classic "They misunderestimated me" on it? It kinda sums up what a Bushism is.

==An opinion==
My belief is that most if not all of these so-called 'Bushisms' are examples of self-deprecating humour by a very intelligent man. The tone of this article is unpleasant and mocking - if it is allowed to remain, it should only be to show how Liberals deliberately or through mental incapacity do not understand the concept self-deprecation (it's nor surprise that so many of them are puffed up with self regard), and are apt to misuse such sayings to attack the originator. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)

:He has never said that his own comments' were made to amuse. The general feeling is that he's making mistakes when he makes speeches. Besides; it would not be fitting for a man in his powerful position to make "bad jokes". It would be very unappropriate. As regards to the unpleasant an mocking tone; I think it's fitting since he makes mistakes which someone who is as well educated as he is simply should not make.09:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Mockery ==

This article is an example of mockery and should be deleted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 00:23, 2 February 2009 (EST)
:Bushisms' are a big part of George Bush and not mentioning them would be to deny something about the man. Whether you like it or not, this is something alot of people connect with George Bush. Even if you voted for him and liked him as a president, people should see that he wasn't flawless.

Miracle

2009-02-01T17:52:41Z

JohnKite: Rewrote the introduction, updating it

A '''miracle''' is defined by Merriam-Webster (2009) as:

: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
: ''Christian Science'': a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

Other definitions include:

: a remarkably good event that has no plausible scientific explanation
: an extremely unlikely occurrence consistent with [[faith]] or [[prayer]]
: a joyous happening contrary to all reasonable expectation
: "a violation of the laws of nature" ([[David Hume]])

Though the term "miracle" can often be heard from Christians and non-Christians alike, the entire [[Bible]] only contains one genuine reference to "miracle" and that was a quote of a non-believer (the Pharaoh) in Exodus 7:9 (RSV): "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Prove yourselves by working a '''miracle''',' then you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your rod and cast it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.'"

Under [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], God is truth and a miracle is nothing more than a "sign" of the truth. "Miracle" is the non-believer's term for what believers properly describe as a "sign", a term that does appear repeatedly in the [[Bible]]. The scholar [[Chad Walsh]] echoes [[C.S. Lewis]]—''Miracles: A Preliminary Study''(1947, Macmillan)—when he states that no other religion bases its ideas upon miracles as much as does Christianity. Its foundation is the [[Incarnation]].<ref> ''C.S. Lewis: Apostle to the Skeptics'', Chad Walsh, Macmillian company, 1949, page 34 </ref>

==List of miracles approved by the [[Congregation for the Causes of Saints]]==
*Stigmata (and other signs) of [[St. Francis of Assisi]]
*Prophecies and miraculous apparitions of [[Saint_Bernadette|St. Bernadette]]
*Apparition of the [[Blessed Virgin Mary|Mary]] at Fatima on the 13th day of six consecutive months in 1917, starting on 13 May.
*Stigmata, bilocation, levitation and prophecy of [[Padre_Pio|St. Pio of Pietrelcina]] (born Francesco Frocione)
*Blood miracle of St. Januarius (also know St. Gennaro)
*The Virgin of the tears: 1953, Syracuse (Sicily) - A statue of the Virgin Mary produces real human tears.

[[category:Christian Theology]]

Talk:Teenage homosexuality

2009-02-01T17:36:15Z

JohnKite: /* removed dead link */

== removed dead link ==

I removed this dead link:

*[http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/| American Family Association on the homosexual agenda]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:27, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reference number 1 ==

The article which reference number 1 refers to, incl. the quote, doesn't seem to have to do with homosexuality, just HIV/AIDS among teenagers in general. I think it should be removed.

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-02-01T13:02:22Z

JohnKite: /* Why no family section? */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== 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)
::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)

== 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)

== 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

==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.

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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 "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)

Star Trek franchise

2009-02-01T01:08:43Z

JohnKite: /* Relationship Views */ Removed the comment about Riker "presumed hetero". It really has nothing to do with the article.

''This article is an overview of all the Star Trek productions. For the original television series, see [[Star Trek (original series)]]''
[[Image:startrektoscast.jpg|thumb|right|The crew of the Enterprise from the original 1960s show.]]
'''Star Trek''' is a number of [[television]] series and [[movie]]s set in the future when mankind is exploring the [[galaxy]] in [[spaceship]]s and joining with other [[sentience|sentient]] inhabitants of the galaxy.

''Star Trek'' began with a television series produced by [[Gene Roddenberry]] in 1966, and was followed by several other series and movies until the present time.
''Star Trek'' has a large following among [[science fiction]] fans, with [[book]]s, [[magazine]]s, [[website]]s, and [[convention]]s devoted to the imaginary universe.

== The series ==

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right"
|-
! Series name || Original air dates || Number of episodes
|-
| [[Star Trek (original series)|Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS)]] || 1966-1969 || style="text-align:right" | 80  
|-
| Star Trek: The Animated Series (TAS) || 1973-1974 || style="text-align:right" | 22  
|-
| Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) || 1987-1994 || style="text-align:right" | 178  
|-
| Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9) || 1993-1999 || style="text-align:right" | 176  
|-
| Star Trek: Voyager (VOY) || 1995-2001 || style="text-align:right" | 172  
|-
| Star Trek: Enterprise (ENT) || 2001-2005 || style="text-align:right" | 98  
|}

Five live-action series have been made, plus one animated series.

=== The original series ===
{{main|Star Trek (original series)}}

The [[Star Trek (original series)|original series]] has the mostly-[[human]] crew of the ''U.S.S. Enterprise'' exploring the galaxy and performing various missions for ''Starfleet'', the authority which controls the ship.
These missions may be diplomatic or defensive, particularly in connection with the hostile races, the [[Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek#Klingon|Klingon]]s and the [[Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek#Romulan|Romulan]]s.

=== The Next Generation ===
''The Next Generation'' followed the theme of the original series, but set some years later with a new crew and a new ship, also named the ''U.S.S. Enterprise''.
By this time, the Klingons were at peace with the Federation, and the crew included a Klingon security officer, as well as various other non-human races.
Also on the crew was ''Data'', an android.

A major foe introduced with this series was the [[Borg]], a "collective" of [[drone]]s, beings from various races who were "assimilated" into the collective.
When encountering another spaceship, the Borg would often introduce themselves with a statement like "''We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.''". The "resistance is futile" phrase has since entered popular culture.

=== Deep Space Nine ===
Unlike each of the other series, ''Deep Space Nine'' was set on a space station near the planet Bajor, around the time that the ''Next Generation'' series finished.
The station, originally built by the Cardassians, was administered by Starfleet and with a mixed Starfleet and Bajoran workforce.

The space station protected the only known stable [[wormhole]] through which ships could pass to another part of the galaxy.
One of the characters on the space station was a "shape-shifter", a being that could assume any form.

=== Voyager ===
''Voyager'' was the name of a Starfleet ship that became trapped in another part of the galaxy, and the series revolved around the crew's attempts to return home, encountering many new races along the way.
The series was set around the same time as ''Deep Space 9''.

The part of the galaxy ''Voyager'' was trapped in was also the part of the galaxy from which the Borg originated, and the Borg is an enemy they encounter numerous times.
Additionally, one of the characters who joins the series part way through is "Seven of Nine", a former Borg drone, originally human, who is successfully largely transformed back into a human, although retaining some of the Borg implants and struggling to adapt to human society, having been assimilated into the Borg at a young age.

=== Enterprise ===
''Enterprise'' is set prior to any other series, at the time when humans are first starting to travel well beyond Earth, and develop much of the technology that would be common-place in series set later.
The mostly-human crew travel in a ship also named ''Enterprise''

== The movies ==

Ten Star Trek movies have been produced, with an eleventh due out in May 2009.

The first six follow on from the original television series.
The seventh (''Generations'') was made after ''The Next Generation'' series, but includes a "crossover" from the original series.
The eighth to tenth movies follow on from ''The Next Generation'' series.
The eleventh movie is a prequel to the original series.

{| class="wikitable"
!Movie Name || Year of Release || MPAA Rating
|-
|Star Trek: The Motion Picture || 1979 || PG
|-
|Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan || 1982 || PG
|-
|Star Trek III: The Search for Spock || 1984 || PG
|-
|Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home || 1986 || PG
|-
|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier || 1989 || PG
|-
|Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country || 1991 || PG
|-
|Star Trek: Generations || 1994 || PG
|-
|Star Trek: First Contact || 1996 || PG-13
|-
|Star Trek: Insurrection || 1998 || PG
|-
|Star Trek: Nemesis || 2002 || PG-13
|-
|Star Trek || 2009 || N/A
|}

== Extraterrestrial life ==
{{main|Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek}}

The drama of the shows typically arises from the crew's contact with various forms of [[extraterrestrial life]], mostly, but not always, [[humanoid]] (e.g. the "Crystalline Entity"). In various ways, the [[premise]] of the [[ancient astronaut theory]] is used to assert the seeding of [[life]] throughout the [[galaxy]] as brought up in ''The Next Generation'', although not to the overt extent of a later, unrelated, TV series, [[Stargate SG-1]].

== Religion in Star Trek ==
As a [[humanist]], Gene Roddenberry infused Star Trek with humanism's dream of a world (or galaxy in this case) where humanity (and many other intelligent beings) were constantly improving the life quality of all beings both through improving technology and improving societal conditions.
People worked together for the common good, rather than for money, and without any class or other distinctions.
This is a small part of what is expected in the Christian view of [[heaven]], except that humanism believes that mankind can achieve this through its own efforts, rather than with the help of God.

Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, although some episodes would make reference to it as a part of culture. For instance in an episode with a man who could not die, it was noted that in one of his personas in Earth history he had been [[Lazarus]] (who [[Jesus]] raised from the dead). In another episode a world where the [[Roman Empire]] never fell was now chasing down followers of "the son" (which the crew mistook to be "sun") and their message of peace and love instead of violence and oppression.

Later series, under the control of other producers particularly after Roddenberry died, also brought religious concepts into the show, but seldom with the same direct references to Christianity, but rather to more generic religious thought.

=== The Next Generation ===

An episode of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' has one major example of anti-religion bias. The third-season episode entitled "Who Watches the Watchers," implies that an alien culture discarding religious beliefs is a positive development.
In the episode "Tapestry", Captain Picard dies and goes to the "afterlife" where he meets his erstwhile adversary "Q" who implies that he is God. Picard refuses to believe this, and makes a comment that "The Universe is not so badly run." This suggests that Picard was aware of the concept of God, but does not indicate that he believed in God. That phrase might be pointed more toward the character of Q controlling the universe than God's existence. However the majority of episodes remain silent on religion. In another episode where the ship is trapped and an alien will perform experiments that will kill up to half the crew, Picard discusses with 'Data' (actually the alien in disguise) what happens after one dies and says some believe in a god who keeps them in their present form forever and others believe that this is all there is. When questioned further, he says that he finds the universe is too orderly to believe that this is all there is and thinks that we will go on existing in a reality that we can not currently comprehend.<ref>Episode [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease Where Silence has Lease] on Memory-Alpha.</ref><ref>[http://tng.trekcore.com/episodes/scripts/128.txt Episode Script]</ref>

=== Bajoran religion ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' included religion more than any other series. An overarching theme of the series was the relation of the main character, Captain Benjamin Sisko, to the Bajoran religion in his role as the emissary to the Bajoran prophets. The prophets were beings who lived in a stable wormhole (a unique phenomenon in the Star Trek universe referred to by the Bajorans as the Celestial Temple) that perceived all of time as a single event with no concept of past, present, or future. Despite their immense dissimilarity to other races in the galaxy, the Prophets took unusual interest in Bajor, sending 'orbs' which were used as tools of prophecy by the Bajoran clergy, and in Sisko who it is revealed exists solely to fulfill a predetermined historical path in an Armageddon-like showdown as the avatar of the prophets against the 'Pah Wraiths' (aliens like the Prophets who were expelled from the Celestial Temple).

=== Other religions ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' also had the Dominion, in which the Founders (shape-shifting aliens sometimes called changelings) are treated as living gods by the races under their control.

The Klingon religion in various series suggests that the first Klingons realized they had no need for their gods, and killed them, although they still hold to an afterlife where the honorable dead join with the deified Kahless and the dishonorable dead are forced to spend eternity on the Barge of the Dead with the demon-like figure Fecklarr.

The Ferengi (mainly in ''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'') had a religion of sorts based on the concept of The Great River (as shown in "Faith, Treachery and The Great River"), which was similar to "[[The invisible hand]]" a phrase coined by [[Adam Smith]]. Ferengi also hold that if they achieve enough profit during their lives, they will meet the Blessed Exchequer who will grant them access to the Divine Treasury, whereas an unsuccessful Ferengi may find himself left in the Vault of Eternal Destitution.

== Relationship Views ==

In addition to his views on religion, Gene Roddenberry had views on relationships which were considered controversial at the time the Original Series was on air, and even today. In fact, a historic event—the first interracial kiss on network television—was between Uhura ([[Nichelle Nichols]]) and Captain Kirk ([[William Shatner]]).<ref>''Plato's Stepchildren'', originally aired Nov. 22, 1968</ref>

Gene Roddenberry was also supportive of same-sex relationships, and wanted to integrate homosexual characters into his second series, ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', reasoning that by the 24th century "no one would care." However, this proposal was met with resistance by [[Paramount Studios]] who reasoned that because the show would eventually be syndicated, it would be accessible to young children for whom such material would be extremely inappropriate.

Despite the absence of major homosexual characters, several storylines have indirectly depicted homosexual and other relationships in a positive, or at the very least ambiguous light. For example, in ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', Commander William Riker falls in love with an individual from an androgynous race.<ref>''The Outcast'', originally aired Mar. 16, 1992.</ref>
In ''Star Trek: DS9'', Lieutenant Commander Jadzia Dax (a [[Trill]], a being comprising a humanoid host of a member of another, asexual, species) briefly resumes a relationship with a wife from a previous lifetime (a male host of the same symbiont), and they are shown kissing on screen.<ref>''Rejoined'', originally aired Oct. 30, 1995.</ref>

== Institutions ==

The ''United Federation of Planets'' is the multi-world government based on [[Earth]], and under which auspices Starfleet operates.

''Starfleet'' is the exploratory and defensive organisation which operates the various starships.

The ''Academy'' is where Starfleet officers and crew are trained.

== Technology ==
The universe of Star Trek has an array of advanced technology, some of which has foreshadowed real developments.
This technology includes computer speech recognition, atom-level fabrication, massive energy production, and faster-than-light travel.

All Starfleet members from the time of ''The Next Generation'' on wear broach-size devices on their uniforms which allow instant two-way communication between crew-members or between the crew-member and the ship's computer.

The ''transporters'', being developed at the time of ''Enterprise'', disassemble and reassemble inanimate and animate things, including people, allowing them to be transported over moderate distances. For example, transporters are frequently used to send people from a spaceship in orbit to the surface of a planet and return.

''Replicators'', introduced in ''The Next Generation''{{fact}} use similar technology to fabricate inanimate objects from a molecular or atomic level.
This includes spare parts for the ships.
Specialised ''food replicators'' can fabricate a wide variety of food, which is suitable for everyday use, but can on occasions not be quite as good as the real thing.

''Holodecks'' and ''holosuites'' (the latter on Deep Space Nine) are rooms containing ''holoprojectors'' that project holographic images with solidity, allowing people to interact with the images. A computer controls the images, which includes holographic people who appear just like real people.
The ''Voyager'' series introduced an "emergency medical hologram", a holographic doctor which could be activated in the case of an emergency.
In this case, the ship's real doctor was killed, and the holographic doctor was a regular character, with enhanced abilities including being able to activate and deactivate himself.
He also managed to acquire a portable holographic projector that he could wear, allowing him to leave the confines of the ship's sick bay and its fixed holographic projectors.

''Phasers'' are the classic "ray gun", emitting a beam that, depending on the setting, was capable of stunning or killing the person on the receiving end.

''Tricorders'' were hand-held devices combining the functions of a computer, communicator, and laboratory for sensing and testing objects.
Specialised ''medical tricorders'' were also used by medical officers.

''Warp drives'' allow spaceships to travel vast distances by creating a sub-space 'bubble' around the ship, allowing faster-than-light travel, a necessity when travelling around the galaxy as part of a day's work.

== The Prime Directive ==
Starfleet had The Prime Directive which said that they should not interfere with the natural progression of a species. The directive sometimes clashed with morality or common sense and on many occasions was ignored by Starfleet officers. There was also a Temporal Prime Directive which said that when going into the past (by various means) they should not try to alter the course of history. When someone from Starfleet (or elsewhere) violated the directive officers were justified in working to stop them as long as they did not violate the directive themselves.

== Star Trek in culture ==

[[image:284699main image 1204 946-710.jpg|300px|thumb|Gene Roddenberry and original series cast members at the launch of the space shuttle ''Enterprise''.]]
Various concepts from Star Trek have entered popular culture, including the following:
* The [[Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek#Vulcan|Vulcan]] greeting, ''Live long and prosper''.
* The [[Borg]] warning that ''resistance is futile''.
* The [[Klingon]] language has been developed as a complete artificial language.
* The first [[space shuttle]], ''Enterprise'', was named for the ship in [[Star Trek (original series)|the original series]].

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Television Shows]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Star Trek| ]]

Obama inauguration

2009-01-30T20:11:38Z

JohnKite: Removed the cost estimate. It was written as pure speculation and the reference even said it was a false rumouir. Not a reliable source.

The '''Obama inauguration''' signaled the conclusion of the Bush administration by the swearing-in ceremony of president-elect [[Barack Hussein Obama]], and [[Joe Biden|Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]] as Vice President, on Tuesday January 20th, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. EST. 1.8 million people came to [[Washington D.C.]] to watch it, the largest crowd ever assembled for a presidential inauguration since Lyndon B. Johnson's inauguration speech in 1965.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103884.html/13/2009-01-13_obamas_inauguration_is_most_expensive_ev.html D.C.'s Inauguration Head Count: 1.8 Million] NY Daily News, January 14th 2009</ref>

==Controversy==
*While inviting a [[Christian]] to give an inaugural prayer is not so controversial, the [[gay]] community is in an uproar over the invite to [[evangelical]] pastor [[Rick Warren]]. Pastor Warren voted for [[Prop 8]] in his home of [[California]]. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4BH7DR20081218 Obama's next pastor controversy - at inauguration] Reuters, December 18, 2008</ref>

*Rev. Sharon Watkins of [[Protestant]] Christian denomination gave an an opening prayer. She is the first woman pastor of a religious faith to give an inaugural prayer. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-obama-prayer-service,0,7764780.story Female minister to deliver sermon at inaugural prayer service, a first] AP, January 11, 2009</ref>

*Openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson from [[New Hampshire]] prayed at a concert held two days before the inauguration. Bishop Robinson was among those responsible for the breakup of the [[American]] [[Episcopal]] Church over the issue of gay pastors. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/13/gay-bishop-to-offer-obama-inaugural-prayers/ Gay bishop to give Inaugural prayer] Washington Times, January 13, 2009</ref>

*Ingrid Mattson, president of the [[Islamic Society of North America]], was invited to give an inaugural prayer. Mattson's group says it does not condone [[terrorism]]. The Holy Land Foundation and five of its former leaders were convicted of funneling millions of dollars to [[Hamas]], for which the ISNA funded and supported. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/17/feds-say-obama-prayer-leader-group-linked-hamas/ Feds Say Obama Prayer Leader Is From Group Linked to Hamas] Fox News, January 17, 2009</ref>

*In an additional break with Obama's predecessors, no [[Catholic]] or [[Jewish]] speaker wass invited to give an inaugural prayer.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Obama Administration]]

Obama inauguration

2009-01-30T20:05:34Z

JohnKite: Removed the cost information. The source was an e-mail rumour that even said it was false in the article.

Obama inauguration

2009-01-30T18:49:50Z

JohnKite: spelling mistake removeed

The '''Obama inauguration''' signaled the conclusion of the Bush administration by the swearing-in ceremony of president-elect [[Barack Hussein Obama]], and [[Joe Biden|Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]] as Vice President, on Tuesday January 20th, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. EST. 1.8 million people came to [[Washington D.C.]] to watch it, the largest crowd ever assembled for a presidential inauguration since Lyndon B. Johnson's inauguration speech in 1965.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103884.html</>/13/2009-01-13_obamas_inauguration_is_most_expensive_ev.html Obama's inauguration is most expensive ever at $160 million] NY Daily News, January 14th 2009</ref>

==Controversy==
*While inviting a [[Christian]] to give an inaugural prayer is not so controversial, the [[gay]] community is in an uproar over the invite to [[evangelical]] pastor [[Rick Warren]]. Pastor Warren voted for [[Prop 8]] in his home of [[California]]. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4BH7DR20081218 Obama's next pastor controversy - at inauguration] Reuters, December 18, 2008</ref>

*Rev. Sharon Watkins of [[Protestant]] Christian denomination will also give an opening prayer. She is the first woman pastor of a religious faith to give an inaugural prayer. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-obama-prayer-service,0,7764780.story Female minister to deliver sermon at inaugural prayer service, a first] AP, January 11, 2009</ref>

*Openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson from [[New Hampshire]] will say an inaugural prayer. Bishop Robinson was among those responsible for the breakup of the [[American]] [[Episcopal]] Church over the issue of gay pastors. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/13/gay-bishop-to-offer-obama-inaugural-prayers/ Gay bishop to give Inaugural prayer] Washington Times, January 13, 2009</ref>

*Ingrid Mattson, president of the [[Islamic Society of North America]], is invited to give an inaugural prayer. Mattson's group says it does not condone [[terrorism]]. The Holy Land Foundation and five of its former leaders were convicted of funneling millions of dollars to [[Hamas]], for which the ISNA funded and supported. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/17/feds-say-obama-prayer-leader-group-linked-hamas/ Feds Say Obama Prayer Leader Is From Group Linked to Hamas] Fox News, January 17, 2009</ref>

*In an additional break with Obama's predecessors, no [[Catholic]] or [[Jewish]] speaker is invited to give an inaugural prayer.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Obama Administration]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-30T18:47:11Z

JohnKite: /* Why no family section? */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== 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)
::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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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

==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.

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

Doom (video game series)

2009-01-30T18:25:25Z

JohnKite: Removed the reference to Columbine. It has nothing to do with the game and does not belong in the article.

'''Doom''' (Officially spelled "DOOM") ([[ESRB]] ratings: M) is a first-person shooting [[violent video games|violent video game]] series, it was created by [[id software]] and is one of the most well known of its genre due to its innovative graphics. It features vast amounts of [[violence]], [[blood]], [[demon]]ic imagery and [[gore]].

There are three games in the series as well as a series of [[expansion pack]]s.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]

[[Category: Video Games]]

Bushism

2009-01-30T18:18:55Z

JohnKite: Removed the "liberal bias" link since it is a fact he mispronounces words, not an opinion.

{{speedy}}
'''Bushism''' is a term used which refers to the to incoherent, mispronounced, or completely fabricated words or phrases stated by [[George W. Bush]]. Bushisms include the mangling of the English language, egregious violations of grammar rules, and other odd phrases.

The sheer existence of the term "Bushism" might be taken as a sign that Bush mangles the language significantly more (or more significantly) than other politicians. However, it is well known that all politicians (and public speakers in general) have occasional slips of the tongue.

Several books books have been written on the subject. Among them Jacob Weisberger's ''"George W. Bushisms : The Slate Book of The Accidental Wit and Wisdom of our 43rd President''".

Some examples:

*"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-5.html February 2001]</ref>
*"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html August 2004]</ref>
*"We had a chance to visit with Teresa Nelson who's a parent, and a mom or a dad."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030909-3.html September 2003]</ref>
*"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601015_pf.html Washington Post]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

== Related articles ==

[[Category: Political Terms]]

Obama inauguration

2009-01-30T14:19:36Z

JohnKite: spelling mistakes

The '''Obama inauguration''' signaled the conclusion of the Bush administration by the swearing-in ceremony of president-elect [[Barack Hussein Obama]], and [[Joe Biden|Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]] as Vice President, on Tuesday January 20th, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. EST. More 1.8 million people came to watch it, the largest crowd ever assembled for a presidential inauguration since Lyndon B. Johnson's inauguration speech in 1965.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103884.html</>/13/2009-01-13_obamas_inauguration_is_most_expensive_ev.html Obama's inauguration is most expensive ever at $160 million] NY Daily News, January 14th 2009</ref> At least 2 million people are expected to travel to [[Washington D.C.]] for the swearing-in.

==Controversy==
*While inviting a [[Christian]] to give an inaugural prayer is not so controversial, the [[gay]] community is in an uproar over the invite to [[evangelical]] pastor [[Rick Warren]]. Pastor Warren voted for [[Prop 8]] in his home of [[California]]. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4BH7DR20081218 Obama's next pastor controversy - at inauguration] Reuters, December 18, 2008</ref>

*Rev. Sharon Watkins of [[Protestant]] Christian denomination will also give an opening prayer. She is the first woman pastor of a religious faith to give an inaugural prayer. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-obama-prayer-service,0,7764780.story Female minister to deliver sermon at inaugural prayer service, a first] AP, January 11, 2009</ref>

*Openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson from [[New Hampshire]] will say an inaugural prayer. Bishop Robinson was among those responsible for the breakup of the [[American]] [[Episcopal]] Church over the issue of gay pastors. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/13/gay-bishop-to-offer-obama-inaugural-prayers/ Gay bishop to give Inaugural prayer] Washington Times, January 13, 2009</ref>

*Ingrid Mattson, president of the [[Islamic Society of North America]], is invited to give an inaugural prayer. Mattson's group says it does not condone [[terrorism]]. The Holy Land Foundation and five of its former leaders were convicted of funneling millions of dollars to [[Hamas]], for which the ISNA funded and supported. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/17/feds-say-obama-prayer-leader-group-linked-hamas/ Feds Say Obama Prayer Leader Is From Group Linked to Hamas] Fox News, January 17, 2009</ref>

*In an additional break with Obama's predecessors, no [[Catholic]] or [[Jewish]] speaker is invited to give an inaugural prayer.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Obama Administration]]

Obama inauguration

2009-01-30T14:18:55Z

JohnKite: Added some comments on the size of the crowd and removed the speculation about how expensive it could've been. Also changed some things to past-tense.

The '''Obama inauguration''' signals the conclusion of the Bush administration by the swearing-in ceremony of president-elect [[Barack Hussein Obama]], and [[Joe Biden|Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]] as Vice President, on Tuesday January 20th, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. EST and 1.8 million people came to watch it, the largest crowd ever assembled for a presidential inaguration since Lyndon B. Johnson's inauguration speech in 1965.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103884.html</>/13/2009-01-13_obamas_inauguration_is_most_expensive_ev.html Obama's inauguration is most expensive ever at $160 million] NY Daily News, January 14th 2009</ref> At least 2 million people are expected to travel to [[Washington D.C.]] for the swearing-in.

==Controversy==
*While inviting a [[Christian]] to give an inaugural prayer is not so controversial, the [[gay]] community is in an uproar over the invite to [[evangelical]] pastor [[Rick Warren]]. Pastor Warren voted for [[Prop 8]] in his home of [[California]]. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4BH7DR20081218 Obama's next pastor controversy - at inauguration] Reuters, December 18, 2008</ref>

*Rev. Sharon Watkins of [[Protestant]] Christian denomination will also give an opening prayer. She is the first woman pastor of a religious faith to give an inaugural prayer. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-obama-prayer-service,0,7764780.story Female minister to deliver sermon at inaugural prayer service, a first] AP, January 11, 2009</ref>

*Openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson from [[New Hampshire]] will say an inaugural prayer. Bishop Robinson was among those responsible for the breakup of the [[American]] [[Episcopal]] Church over the issue of gay pastors. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/13/gay-bishop-to-offer-obama-inaugural-prayers/ Gay bishop to give Inaugural prayer] Washington Times, January 13, 2009</ref>

*Ingrid Mattson, president of the [[Islamic Society of North America]], is invited to give an inaugural prayer. Mattson's group says it does not condone [[terrorism]]. The Holy Land Foundation and five of its former leaders were convicted of funneling millions of dollars to [[Hamas]], for which the ISNA funded and supported. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/17/feds-say-obama-prayer-leader-group-linked-hamas/ Feds Say Obama Prayer Leader Is From Group Linked to Hamas] Fox News, January 17, 2009</ref>

*In an additional break with Obama's predecessors, no [[Catholic]] or [[Jewish]] speaker is invited to give an inaugural prayer.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Obama Administration]]

Bushism

2009-01-30T14:10:50Z

JohnKite: Fixed spelling mistake

Bushism

2009-01-30T14:10:23Z

JohnKite: Removed the comment that it Bushism is a liberal fabricated word. It lacked a citation and I've heard both conservaties and liberals use it.

{{speedy}}
'''Bushism''' is the term used which refers to the to incoherent, mispronounced, or completely fabricated words or phrases stated by [[George W. Bush]]. Bushisms include the mangling of the English language, egregious violations of grammar rules, and other odd phrases.

The sheer existence of the term "Bushism" might be taken as a sign that Bush mangles the language significantly more (or more significantly) than other politicians. However, it is well known that all politicians (and public speakers in general) have occasional slips of the tongue.

Several books books have been written on the subject. Among them Jacob Weisberger's ''"George W. Bushisms : The Slate Book of The Accidental Wit and Wisdom of our 43rd President''".

Some examples:

*"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-5.html February 2001]</ref>
*"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html August 2004]</ref>
*"We had a chance to visit with Teresa Nelson who's a parent, and a mom or a dad."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030909-3.html September 2003]</ref>
*"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601015_pf.html Washington Post]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

== Related articles ==
*[[Liberal bias]]

[[Category: Liberal Bias]]
[[Category: Political Terms]]

Talk:Bushism

2009-01-30T14:08:50Z

JohnKite: /* An opinion */

Talk:Bushism

2009-01-30T14:08:28Z

JohnKite: /* An opinion */

Hello, Ed Poor! I wanted to ask you about the examples you deleted. I understand the last one is unsourced (but easily verifiable). However, the third one ("If you want to help, give cash money to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army") had an undisputable source. Why did you delete it, exactly? -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 15:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could explain how it's a Bushism, for those of us who are a little slow? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:03, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, and sorry. It is redundant, that is, more than is needed, desired or required. Repetitive, verbose, superfluous, tautologous. -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 16:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I know what redundant means, thanks.... Are you trying to say that it's a Bushism because he said "cash money"? That seems to be the only redundant part, and it's not exactly a made up phrase. Or am I missing something?

:::By the way, I agree with you on "misunderestimate;" it's easily the most famous Bushism. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:36, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Distortion ==

Jenkins, you have completely distorted this article. By general consensus, a Bushism is a word or a phrase misspelled or incoherently said by George W. Bush. I know he has many virtues, but he's not the Great Communicator, like President Reagan was, or at least plain spoken. -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 16:46, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:...*blinks* I'm sorry, should I put back the statement that Bush stated that liberals think that every misused word is a Bushism? Or should I put back the stuff about the truth most likely being that liberals are meanie poopie heads who are biased against Bush? I'm willing to discuss, but as a disclaimer, I think Bush makes more slip-ups than most others and that it's not just liberal bias. I'm merely trying to bring the article away from pure opinion without being reverted for being too liberal.
:If you tell me which section is too pro-Bush, I'll gladly help to improve it! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::I give up. I guess I'll be banned before I'll say more about this. --[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 08:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:::You know, the thing that makes me the most aggravated here is that I'm among the ''last'' people on this entire site to discourage open communication. I got blocked myself quite a few times now for talk page things, so trust me, we're pretty much on the same side.
:::As such, I'm also fairly amused that you seem to think I'm too conservative or even a Bush-lover. A short time after you made the initial post, somebody else called me a deceitful liberal.
:::Anyway. I'll go through the phrases I changed and explain my reasoning:
:::*''Bushism is the term coined by liberals to refer to any word or phrase that they think is either (1) incoherent, (2) misspelled, or (3) idiotic, as stated by George W. Bush.''
:::**Aside from neutral word-changing to fit the flow, I only restructured it. The "as stated by GWB" at the end of the sentence gave me the impression that it refers to the statement of the sentence so far (that it's an expression coined by liberals) instead of what it should refer to (the phrases themselves).
:::*''The implication is that Bush mangles the language significantly more than other politicians.''
:::**This is nothing more than highly suggestive interpretation without a source. Sort of like saying "X said Y, hoping to trick Z into doing something" while only giving a source for the "X said Y" part. I reworded it slightly to avoid the "implication is" part.
:::*''The truth is more likely that the liberal media gleefully collect and publicize his verbal gaffes disproportionately.''
:::**I could have changed it to "The truth more likely is that GWB has the IQ of toast," and it would have followed the commandments exactly as much as the original sentence: Not at all. Unsourced speculation about truth, combined with bold claims and accusations that are practically impossible to prove, should generally be avoided. I replaced it with the fairly uncontroversial claim that everybody occasionally screws up, and an explanation attempt about Bush maybe being in the spotlight more often because he's... well... more often in the spotlight in general.
:::Yes, it's unsourced. Yes, it's still part speculation (however, the claims are not as bold as before and less controversial in my eyes). No, I wouldn't mind ''at all'' if somebody removed the entire second paragraph. As a matter of fact, I would've removed the entire paragraph myself, but I didn't want to provoke an edit war.
:::As far as I am aware, there is no reliable source discussing ''why'' we have the term "Bushism", but not "Putinism", "Merkelism", "Clintonism", or whatever else. If we actually enforced the "Must source stuff like that, yo!" commandment, the entire non-example part of the article (both the version we have now and the version I edited) would have to be nuked. There are sources that confirm that the term exists, and there are sources that describe what the term refers to, but that's it, from what I know. Even the "coined by liberals" part is unsourced speculation right now.
:::We can speculate that it's because Bush's an idiot, we can speculate that it's because the Evil Liberal Media hypes it, or we can speculate that Bush is in fact an Alien clone with a broken language module. I tried to tone done the accusation without stirring the waters too much. If you think you can do better, be my guest. I most likely won't stop you. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:59, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you very much :) [[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 14:55, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

==???==

Can someone please explain to me why cataloging Bush's mistakes is liberal bias and deciet, while you all have pages of mistakes that Obama makes? isn't that a bit of a double standard?

-[[User:noahH|noahH]]

George W. Bush is the siting United States President and should be treated with respect. That's why. -[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:If Obama is elected should he be treated with the same respect? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 16:42, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry Ferno, but you sound like a liberal, you should read the article on [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. [[User:JamesRa|JamesRa]] 16:49, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I've read it, I wasn't impressed. I think my question applies to both sides of the political spectrum. The Right defends Bush and the Left defended Bill Clinton with the same reason; "He deserves our respect because he is the president". '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 16:54, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

If Obama is elected, and that is a big IF, then I would say depending on his behavior he should be respected as well. Clinton did things to disrespect and fowl the office of President so his criticism was warranted. President Bush has not done anything immoral or otherwise to deserve disrespect from his citizens. -[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

==A possible explanation...==

The page says: "A possible explanation for the existence of the term is that George Bush, being the President of the United States, simply attracts more attention (both by supporters and detractors worldwide) than others.". Isn't that just speculation? Should it really be a part of a fact page? Also, why isn't the classic "They misunderestimated me" on it? It kinda sums up what a Bushism is.

==An opinion==
My belief is that most if not all of these so-called 'Bushisms' are examples of self-deprecating humour by a very intelligent man. The tone of this article is unpleasant and mocking - if it is allowed to remain, it should only be to show how Liberals deliberately or through mental incapacity do not understand the concept self-deprecation (it's nor surprise that so many of them are puffed up with self regard), and are apt to misuse such sayings to attack the originator. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)

He has never said that his own comments' were made to amuse. The general feeling is that he's making mistakes when he makes speeches. Besides; it would not be fitting for a man in his powerful position to make "bad jokes". It would be very unappropriate. As regards to the unpleasant an mocking tone; I think it's fitting since he makes mistakes which someone who is as well educated as he is simply should not make.09:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Bushism

2009-01-30T14:08:15Z

JohnKite: /* An opinion */

Hello, Ed Poor! I wanted to ask you about the examples you deleted. I understand the last one is unsourced (but easily verifiable). However, the third one ("If you want to help, give cash money to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army") had an undisputable source. Why did you delete it, exactly? -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 15:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could explain how it's a Bushism, for those of us who are a little slow? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:03, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, and sorry. It is redundant, that is, more than is needed, desired or required. Repetitive, verbose, superfluous, tautologous. -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 16:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I know what redundant means, thanks.... Are you trying to say that it's a Bushism because he said "cash money"? That seems to be the only redundant part, and it's not exactly a made up phrase. Or am I missing something?

:::By the way, I agree with you on "misunderestimate;" it's easily the most famous Bushism. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:36, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Distortion ==

Jenkins, you have completely distorted this article. By general consensus, a Bushism is a word or a phrase misspelled or incoherently said by George W. Bush. I know he has many virtues, but he's not the Great Communicator, like President Reagan was, or at least plain spoken. -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 16:46, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:...*blinks* I'm sorry, should I put back the statement that Bush stated that liberals think that every misused word is a Bushism? Or should I put back the stuff about the truth most likely being that liberals are meanie poopie heads who are biased against Bush? I'm willing to discuss, but as a disclaimer, I think Bush makes more slip-ups than most others and that it's not just liberal bias. I'm merely trying to bring the article away from pure opinion without being reverted for being too liberal.
:If you tell me which section is too pro-Bush, I'll gladly help to improve it! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::I give up. I guess I'll be banned before I'll say more about this. --[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 08:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:::You know, the thing that makes me the most aggravated here is that I'm among the ''last'' people on this entire site to discourage open communication. I got blocked myself quite a few times now for talk page things, so trust me, we're pretty much on the same side.
:::As such, I'm also fairly amused that you seem to think I'm too conservative or even a Bush-lover. A short time after you made the initial post, somebody else called me a deceitful liberal.
:::Anyway. I'll go through the phrases I changed and explain my reasoning:
:::*''Bushism is the term coined by liberals to refer to any word or phrase that they think is either (1) incoherent, (2) misspelled, or (3) idiotic, as stated by George W. Bush.''
:::**Aside from neutral word-changing to fit the flow, I only restructured it. The "as stated by GWB" at the end of the sentence gave me the impression that it refers to the statement of the sentence so far (that it's an expression coined by liberals) instead of what it should refer to (the phrases themselves).
:::*''The implication is that Bush mangles the language significantly more than other politicians.''
:::**This is nothing more than highly suggestive interpretation without a source. Sort of like saying "X said Y, hoping to trick Z into doing something" while only giving a source for the "X said Y" part. I reworded it slightly to avoid the "implication is" part.
:::*''The truth is more likely that the liberal media gleefully collect and publicize his verbal gaffes disproportionately.''
:::**I could have changed it to "The truth more likely is that GWB has the IQ of toast," and it would have followed the commandments exactly as much as the original sentence: Not at all. Unsourced speculation about truth, combined with bold claims and accusations that are practically impossible to prove, should generally be avoided. I replaced it with the fairly uncontroversial claim that everybody occasionally screws up, and an explanation attempt about Bush maybe being in the spotlight more often because he's... well... more often in the spotlight in general.
:::Yes, it's unsourced. Yes, it's still part speculation (however, the claims are not as bold as before and less controversial in my eyes). No, I wouldn't mind ''at all'' if somebody removed the entire second paragraph. As a matter of fact, I would've removed the entire paragraph myself, but I didn't want to provoke an edit war.
:::As far as I am aware, there is no reliable source discussing ''why'' we have the term "Bushism", but not "Putinism", "Merkelism", "Clintonism", or whatever else. If we actually enforced the "Must source stuff like that, yo!" commandment, the entire non-example part of the article (both the version we have now and the version I edited) would have to be nuked. There are sources that confirm that the term exists, and there are sources that describe what the term refers to, but that's it, from what I know. Even the "coined by liberals" part is unsourced speculation right now.
:::We can speculate that it's because Bush's an idiot, we can speculate that it's because the Evil Liberal Media hypes it, or we can speculate that Bush is in fact an Alien clone with a broken language module. I tried to tone done the accusation without stirring the waters too much. If you think you can do better, be my guest. I most likely won't stop you. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:59, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you very much :) [[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 14:55, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

==???==

Can someone please explain to me why cataloging Bush's mistakes is liberal bias and deciet, while you all have pages of mistakes that Obama makes? isn't that a bit of a double standard?

-[[User:noahH|noahH]]

George W. Bush is the siting United States President and should be treated with respect. That's why. -[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:If Obama is elected should he be treated with the same respect? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 16:42, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry Ferno, but you sound like a liberal, you should read the article on [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. [[User:JamesRa|JamesRa]] 16:49, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I've read it, I wasn't impressed. I think my question applies to both sides of the political spectrum. The Right defends Bush and the Left defended Bill Clinton with the same reason; "He deserves our respect because he is the president". '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 16:54, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

If Obama is elected, and that is a big IF, then I would say depending on his behavior he should be respected as well. Clinton did things to disrespect and fowl the office of President so his criticism was warranted. President Bush has not done anything immoral or otherwise to deserve disrespect from his citizens. -[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

==A possible explanation...==

The page says: "A possible explanation for the existence of the term is that George Bush, being the President of the United States, simply attracts more attention (both by supporters and detractors worldwide) than others.". Isn't that just speculation? Should it really be a part of a fact page? Also, why isn't the classic "They misunderestimated me" on it? It kinda sums up what a Bushism is.

==An opinion==
My belief is that most if not all of these so-called 'Bushisms' are examples of self-deprecating humour by a very intelligent man. The tone of this article is unpleasant and mocking - if it is allowed to remain, it should only be to show how Liberals deliberately or through mental incapacity do not understand the concept self-deprecation (it's nor surprise that so many of them are puffed up with self regard), and are apt to misuse such sayings to attack the originator. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)
He has never said that his own comments' were made to amuse. The general feeling is that he's making mistakes when he makes speeches. Besides; it would not be fitting for a man in his powerful position to make "bad jokes". It would be very unappropriate. As regards to the unpleasant an mocking tone; I think it's fitting since he makes mistakes which someone who is as well educated as he is simply should not make.09:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Bushism

2009-01-30T14:07:55Z

JohnKite: I

Hello, Ed Poor! I wanted to ask you about the examples you deleted. I understand the last one is unsourced (but easily verifiable). However, the third one ("If you want to help, give cash money to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army") had an undisputable source. Why did you delete it, exactly? -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 15:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could explain how it's a Bushism, for those of us who are a little slow? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:03, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, and sorry. It is redundant, that is, more than is needed, desired or required. Repetitive, verbose, superfluous, tautologous. -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 16:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I know what redundant means, thanks.... Are you trying to say that it's a Bushism because he said "cash money"? That seems to be the only redundant part, and it's not exactly a made up phrase. Or am I missing something?

:::By the way, I agree with you on "misunderestimate;" it's easily the most famous Bushism. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:36, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Distortion ==

Jenkins, you have completely distorted this article. By general consensus, a Bushism is a word or a phrase misspelled or incoherently said by George W. Bush. I know he has many virtues, but he's not the Great Communicator, like President Reagan was, or at least plain spoken. -[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 16:46, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:...*blinks* I'm sorry, should I put back the statement that Bush stated that liberals think that every misused word is a Bushism? Or should I put back the stuff about the truth most likely being that liberals are meanie poopie heads who are biased against Bush? I'm willing to discuss, but as a disclaimer, I think Bush makes more slip-ups than most others and that it's not just liberal bias. I'm merely trying to bring the article away from pure opinion without being reverted for being too liberal.
:If you tell me which section is too pro-Bush, I'll gladly help to improve it! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::I give up. I guess I'll be banned before I'll say more about this. --[[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 08:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:::You know, the thing that makes me the most aggravated here is that I'm among the ''last'' people on this entire site to discourage open communication. I got blocked myself quite a few times now for talk page things, so trust me, we're pretty much on the same side.
:::As such, I'm also fairly amused that you seem to think I'm too conservative or even a Bush-lover. A short time after you made the initial post, somebody else called me a deceitful liberal.
:::Anyway. I'll go through the phrases I changed and explain my reasoning:
:::*''Bushism is the term coined by liberals to refer to any word or phrase that they think is either (1) incoherent, (2) misspelled, or (3) idiotic, as stated by George W. Bush.''
:::**Aside from neutral word-changing to fit the flow, I only restructured it. The "as stated by GWB" at the end of the sentence gave me the impression that it refers to the statement of the sentence so far (that it's an expression coined by liberals) instead of what it should refer to (the phrases themselves).
:::*''The implication is that Bush mangles the language significantly more than other politicians.''
:::**This is nothing more than highly suggestive interpretation without a source. Sort of like saying "X said Y, hoping to trick Z into doing something" while only giving a source for the "X said Y" part. I reworded it slightly to avoid the "implication is" part.
:::*''The truth is more likely that the liberal media gleefully collect and publicize his verbal gaffes disproportionately.''
:::**I could have changed it to "The truth more likely is that GWB has the IQ of toast," and it would have followed the commandments exactly as much as the original sentence: Not at all. Unsourced speculation about truth, combined with bold claims and accusations that are practically impossible to prove, should generally be avoided. I replaced it with the fairly uncontroversial claim that everybody occasionally screws up, and an explanation attempt about Bush maybe being in the spotlight more often because he's... well... more often in the spotlight in general.
:::Yes, it's unsourced. Yes, it's still part speculation (however, the claims are not as bold as before and less controversial in my eyes). No, I wouldn't mind ''at all'' if somebody removed the entire second paragraph. As a matter of fact, I would've removed the entire paragraph myself, but I didn't want to provoke an edit war.
:::As far as I am aware, there is no reliable source discussing ''why'' we have the term "Bushism", but not "Putinism", "Merkelism", "Clintonism", or whatever else. If we actually enforced the "Must source stuff like that, yo!" commandment, the entire non-example part of the article (both the version we have now and the version I edited) would have to be nuked. There are sources that confirm that the term exists, and there are sources that describe what the term refers to, but that's it, from what I know. Even the "coined by liberals" part is unsourced speculation right now.
:::We can speculate that it's because Bush's an idiot, we can speculate that it's because the Evil Liberal Media hypes it, or we can speculate that Bush is in fact an Alien clone with a broken language module. I tried to tone done the accusation without stirring the waters too much. If you think you can do better, be my guest. I most likely won't stop you. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:59, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you very much :) [[User:Aralin|Aralin]] 14:55, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

==???==

Can someone please explain to me why cataloging Bush's mistakes is liberal bias and deciet, while you all have pages of mistakes that Obama makes? isn't that a bit of a double standard?

-[[User:noahH|noahH]]

George W. Bush is the siting United States President and should be treated with respect. That's why. -[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:If Obama is elected should he be treated with the same respect? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 16:42, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry Ferno, but you sound like a liberal, you should read the article on [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. [[User:JamesRa|JamesRa]] 16:49, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I've read it, I wasn't impressed. I think my question applies to both sides of the political spectrum. The Right defends Bush and the Left defended Bill Clinton with the same reason; "He deserves our respect because he is the president". '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 16:54, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

If Obama is elected, and that is a big IF, then I would say depending on his behavior he should be respected as well. Clinton did things to disrespect and fowl the office of President so his criticism was warranted. President Bush has not done anything immoral or otherwise to deserve disrespect from his citizens. -[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

==A possible explanation...==

The page says: "A possible explanation for the existence of the term is that George Bush, being the President of the United States, simply attracts more attention (both by supporters and detractors worldwide) than others.". Isn't that just speculation? Should it really be a part of a fact page? Also, why isn't the classic "They misunderestimated me" on it? It kinda sums up what a Bushism is.

==An opinion==
My belief is that most if not all of these so-called 'Bushisms' are examples of self-deprecating humour by a very intelligent man. The tone of this article is unpleasant and mocking - if it is allowed to remain, it should only be to show how Liberals deliberately or through mental incapacity do not understand the concept self-deprecation (it's nor surprise that so many of them are puffed up with self regard), and are apt to misuse such sayings to attack the originator. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)
He has never said that his own comments' were made to amuse. The general feeling is that he's making mistakes when he makes speeches. Besides; it would not be fitting for a man in his powerful position to make "bad jokes". It would be very unappropriate. As regards to the unpleasant an mocking tone; I think it's fitting since he makes mistakes which someone who is as well educated as he is simply should not make.

Sweden

2009-01-30T14:01:26Z

JohnKite: Removed comment about Swedes being atheist (the referenced article does say: These figures do not necessarily represent the number of people who are identify themselves as "atheists.")

{{Country
|name =''Konungariket Sverige''
|map =Sweden rel96.jpg
|flag =Flag of Sweden.png
|arms =Arms of Sweden.png
|capital =Stockholm
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =Swedish
|king =Carl XVI Gustaf
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Fredrik Reinfeldt
|pm-raw =
|area =173,732 sq mi
|pop =9,142,8174 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$291 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$32,200 (2006)
|currency =Swedish krona
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants, with an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).

Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is 41 year old Fredrik Reinfeldt, leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI Gustaf]] is the current king.

==People==
Sweden has one of the world's highest life expectancies. The country counts at least 17,000 Sami among its population. About one-fifth of Sweden's population are immigrants or have at least one foreign-born parent. The largest immigrant groups are from Finland, Iraq, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Norway, Denmark, and Poland. This reflects Nordic immigration, earlier periods of labor immigration, and later decades of refugee and family immigration.

Swedish is a Germanic language related to Danish and Norwegian but different in pronunciation and orthography. English is by far the leading foreign language, particularly among students and those under age 50.

Sweden has an extensive child-care system that guarantees a place for all young children from 2-6 years old in a public day-care facility. From ages 7-16, children attend compulsory comprehensive school. After completing the ninth grade, 90% attend upper secondary school for either academic or technical education.

Swedes benefit from an extensive social welfare system, which provides for childcare and maternity and paternity leave, a ceiling on health care costs, old-age pensions, and sick leave among other benefits. Parents are entitled to a total of 480 days' paid leave between birth and the child's eighth birthday, with 60 of those days reserved specifically for the father.
*Population (November 2007): 9,179,731.
*Annual population growth rate (2007): 0.76%.
*Ethnic groups: Indigenous Swedes, ethnic Finns, ethnic Sami.
*Immigrants: Total: 491,996 (20% of total population); Finns, Iraqis, ex-Yugoslavia nationals, Iranians, Norwegians, Danes, Greeks, and Turks.
*Religions: Lutheran (87%), Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2006)--2.80/1,000. Life expectancy--men 78.70 years, women 82.94 years.
*Work force (4.82 million, 2007 est.): Services--70.7%; industry--28.2%; agriculture--1.1%. Unemployment (2007)--5.2%.
*Public holidays (2008): January 1 (New Year's Day); January 6 (Epiphany); March 21 (Good Friday); March 22 (Easter); March 23 (Easter Sunday); March 24 (Easter Monday); May 1 (May Day and Ascension Day); May 11 (Whit Sunday); June 6 (National Day); June 21 (Midsummer Holiday); November 1 (All Saints' Day); December 25 (Christmas); December 26 (Boxing Day).

The eve of a holiday is as important--or more so--than the holiday itself. Most Swedes have the day off, including those working in the civil service, banks, public transport, hospitals, shops, and the media. Others have at least a half-day. This applies especially to Midsummer's Eve, All Saints' Day Eve, and Christmas Eve. The eve of May Day is called Valborg Eve or St Walpurgis. When a holiday falls on a Thursday many Swedes have the following Friday off in addition. When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday it is not taken on the following Monday.

====Christianity in Sweden====
80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). The number is so high because children born to members of the church automatically become lifelong members. This church is somewhat unique because it has decided to agree to perform a blessing ceremony for [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] engaging in registered partnership (full marriage for same sex couples is a matter of debate in Sweden). This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against [[abortion]]s, [[divorce]], and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to "conservative" Christian churches.

Sweden has 18 weeks of free [[abortion]] and 4 weeks during which women need to get special permission to be allowed an abortion. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and much suggests that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition. In the 1960's the government decided to reduce in school education about [[Christianity]]. In 2000, the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church.

In 2005 a Swedish Pentecostal preacher, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month, but then acquitted by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

==Government==
Popular government in Sweden rests upon ancient tradition. The Swedish parliament (Riksdag) stems from tribal courts (Ting) and the election of kings in the Viking age. It became a permanent institution in the 15th century. Sweden's government is a limited constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. Executive authority is vested in the cabinet, which consists of a prime minister and 22 ministers who run the government departments. The present Alliance for Sweden government, led by Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, came to power in September 2006. King Carl XVI Gustaf (Bernadotte) ascended to the throne on September 15, 1973. His authority is formal, symbolic, and representational. The unicameral Riksdag has 349 members, popularly elected every 4 years, and is in session generally from September through mid-June.

Sweden has three levels of government: national, regional, and local. In addition, there is the European level which has acquired increasing importance following Sweden's entry into the EU. At parliamentary elections and municipal and county council elections held every four years, voters elect those who are to decide how Sweden is governed and administered.

Sweden is divided into 18 counties (lan), 18 county councils (landsting), 290 municipalities (kommuner), and 2 semi-independent regions. Each county (lan) is headed by a governor, who is appointed by the central government. The counties coordinate administration with national political goals for the county. The county council (landsting) is a regional government that is popularly elected with particular responsibility for health and medical care. The municipalities are local governments that deal with issues such as education, public transportation and social welfare. Elected municipal councils are headed by executive committees roughly analogous to the boards of commissioners found in some U.S. cities.

Swedish law, drawing on Germanic and Roman, is neither as codified as in France and other countries influenced by the Napoleonic Code, nor as dependent on judicial practice and precedents as in the United States. Legislative and judicial institutions include, in addition to the Riksdag, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Labor Court, the Law Council, District Courts and Courts of Appeal, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the parliamentary ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice who oversee the application of laws with particular attention to abuses of authority.

At the national level, the Swedish people are represented by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) which has legislative powers. Proposals for new laws are presented by the government which also implements decisions taken by the Riksdag. The government is assisted in its work by the government offices, comprising a number of ministries, and some 300 central government agencies and public administrations.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf
*Prime Minister (Head of Government)--Fredrik Reinfeldt
*Minister for Finance--Anders Borg
*Minister for the Environment--Andreas Carlgren
*Minister for Justice--Beatrice Ask
*Minister for Foreign Affairs--Carl Bildt
*Minister for EU Affairs--Cecilia Malmstrom
*Minister for Social Security--Cristina Husmark Pehrsson
*Minister for Agriculture--Eskil Erlandsson
*Minister for International Development Co-operation--Gunilla Carlsson
*Minister for Health and Social Affairs--Goran Hagglund
*Minister for Higher Education and Research--Lars Leijonborg
*Minister for Education--Jan Bjorklund
*Minister for Culture--Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth
*Minister for Elderly Care and Public Health--Maria Larsson
*Minister for Local Government and Financial Markets--Mats Odell
*Minister for Enterprise and Energy--Maud Olofsson
*Minister for Defense--Sten Tolgfors
*Minister for Integration and Gender Equality--Nyamko Sabuni
*Minister for Trade--Ewa Bjorling
*Minister for Employment--Sven Otto Littorin
*Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy--Tobias Billstrom
*Minister for Infrastructure--Asa Torstensson
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Anders Liden

===Political Conditions===
Ordinary general elections to the Swedish parliament are held every fourth year on the third Sunday in September. County council and municipal council elections take place at the same time. The last elections were held in September 2006. There is a barrier rule intended to prevent very small parties from gaining representation in the parliament. A party must thus receive at least 4% of the votes in the entire country or 12% in a single electoral district to qualify for any seats.

Elections to the Riksdag were held on September 17, 2006. The Alliance for Sweden (a coalition of four center-right parties--the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the Christian Democrat, and the Center Party) won 178 of the 349 seats, securing Moderate Fredrik Reinfeldt the position of Prime Minister. The 2006 election results for Sweden's major parties were as follows: the Social Democratic Party (34.99%; 130 seats), the Moderate Party (26.23%; 97 seats), the Center Party (7.88%; 29 seats), the Liberal Party (7.54%; 28 seats), the Christian Democrats (6.59%; 24 seats), the Left Party (5.85%; 22 seats), and the Green Party (5.24%; 19 seats).

The Social Democratic Party has a base of blue-collar workers and public sector employees. It derives much of its power from strong links with the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), which represents blue-collar workers. The party program combines a commitment to social welfare programs and government direction of the economy. The Social Democratic Party has led the government for 65 of the 76 years since 1932; the 2006 election ended its most recent term of 12 consecutive years in office.

The Moderate Party emphasizes personal freedom, free enterprise, and reduction of the public-sector growth rate, while still supporting most of the social benefits introduced since the 1930s. The party also supports a strong defense and Sweden's membership in the European Union (EU). Its voter base is urban business people and professionals, but the party also attracts young voters, main-street shop owners, and, to some extent, blue-collar workers. Moderate Party Leader Reinfeldt followed an election strategy of remodeling his party as "New Moderates," moving away from the party's right-wing, upper-class roots to appeal to a large middle ground of voters, and successfully winning over many who had until then supported the SDP, as well as others who had previously voted for the smaller, non-socialist parties. Reinfeldt was instrumental in uniting the previously divided four parties of the center-right opposition. The Alliance offered alternative policies focusing on job creation that persuaded the voters.

The Center Party maintains close ties to rural Sweden. The main priorities of the party include providing a sound economic climate for business and job creation, climate change and environmental concerns (including nuclear power), and health and welfare issues.

The Left Party, formerly the Communist Party, focuses on feminist issues, employment in the public sector, and the environment. It opposes privatization, cuts in public expenditure, Swedish participation in NATO activities, and EU membership. Its voter base consists mainly of young people, public sector employees, feminists, journalists, and former social democrats.

The Christian Democrat Party is conservative and value-oriented. Its voter base is primarily among members of conservative churches and rural populations. Christian Democrats seek government support for families and better ethical practices to improve care for the elderly.

The Liberal Party's platform is "social responsibility without socialism," which includes a commitment to a free-market economy combined with comprehensive Swedish social welfare programs. Foreign aid, education and women's equality also are popular issues. The Liberal Party base is mainly centered in educated middle-class voters.

The Green Party is a leftist environmentalist party that attracts young people. The Greens support a phasing-out of nuclear energy in Sweden and hope to replace it with alternative, environmentally friendly energy sources.

The next Swedish election for parliament is scheduled to be held in 2010. In 2009 Sweden will vote for its representatives to the European Parliament.

===Foreign Relations===
Swedish foreign policy is based on the premise that national security is best served by staying free of alliances in peacetime in order to remain neutral in the event of war. In 2002, Sweden revised its security doctrine. The new security doctrine still states that "Sweden pursues a policy of non-participation in military alliances," but permits cooperation in response to threats against peace and security. The Swedish Government devotes particular attention to issues of disarmament, arms control, and nuclear nonproliferation and has contributed importantly to UN and other international peacekeeping efforts, including the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in the Balkans (KFOR). Sweden also contributes to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and assumed leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar e-Sharif in March 2006.

Sweden participates actively in the United Nations and its specialized and related agencies, including the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (USESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), and others including as a member of the Security Council in 1997-98. In January 1995, Sweden became a full member of the European Union after a referendum in late 1994 indicated that 52.3% of participants wanted to join. Sweden became a member in part due to its increasing isolation outside the economic framework of the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PFP) and participates in numerous international peacekeeping operations under UN auspices. Sweden also cooperates closely with its Nordic neighbors, formally in economic and social matters through the Nordic Council of Ministers and informally in political matters through direct consultation.

Swedish governments do not consider that nonalignment precludes taking outspoken positions in international affairs. Government leaders have favored national liberation movements that enjoy broad support among developing world countries, with notable attention to Africa. During the Cold War, Sweden was suspicious of the superpowers, which it saw as making decisions affecting small countries without always consulting those countries. With the end of the Cold War, that suspicion has lessened somewhat, although Sweden still chooses to remain nonaligned.

== Economy ==
Sweden is a highly industrialized country. Agriculture, once accounting for nearly all of Sweden's economy, now employs less than 2% of the labor force. Extensive forests, rich iron ore deposits, and hydroelectric power are the natural resources which, through the application of technology and efficient organization, have enabled Sweden to become a leading producing and exporting nation.

The Swedish economic picture has brightened significantly since the severe recession in the early 1990s. Growth has been strong in recent years, with an annual average GDP growth rate of 2.5% for the period 2000-2004 and 2.7% in 2005. The inflation rate was low in 2006, with an annual average inflation rate of about 1.5%, but unemployment remains a stubborn problem. The inflation rate rose to 3.5% in December 2007. The unemployment rate held steady in recent years at about 5% and in 2005 reached 7.8%. Unemployment in 2007 reached 5.2%. Since the mid-1990s, Sweden's export sector has grown significantly as the information technology (IT) industry, telecommunications, and services have overtaken traditional industries such as steel, paper, and pulp. The overall current-account surplus has traditionally been much smaller than the merchandise trade balance, as Sweden has generally run a deficit on trade in services, net income flows, and unrequited transfers. However, since 2003 this has not been the case, as the services balance swung into surplus in 2003 and improved further in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the income account also swung from deficit into surplus in 2003, before slipping back to register small deficits in 2004 and 2005. Although the transfers balance remained in deficit, mainly as a result of Sweden's contributions to the EU budget, the overall current-account surplus was larger than the trade surplus in 2003-05. Most categories of services exports produced an improvement over this period, but the biggest contribution came from business services exports, followed by transportation and royalties and license fees.

During 2005 real GDP rose by 2.5%, 3.4% in 2006, and 2.9% (est.) in 2007. The government budget improved dramatically from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993 to a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2006. The new, strict budget process with spending ceilings set by parliament, and a constitutional change to an independent Central Bank, have greatly improved policy credibility. This can be seen in the long-term interest rate margin versus the Euro, which is negligible. From the perspective of longer-term fiscal sustainability, the long-awaited reform of old-age pensions entered into force in 1999. This entails a far more robust system vis-à-vis adverse demographic and economic trends, which should keep the ratio of total pension disbursements to the aggregate wage bill close to 20% in the decades ahead. Taken together, both fiscal consolidation and pension reform have brought public finances back on a sustainable footing. Gross public debt, which jumped from 43% of GDP in 1990 to 78% in 1994, stabilized around the middle of the 1990s and has been decreasing in recent years. In 2007 public debt was about 35.6% of GDP. These figures show excellent improvement of the Swedish economy since the crisis of the early 1990s.

Eighty percent of the Swedish labor force is unionized. For most unions there is a counterpart employers' organization for businesses. The unions and employer organizations are independent of both the government and political parties, although the largest federation of unions, the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), always has maintained close links to the largest political party, the Social Democrats. There is no fixed minimum wage by legislation. Instead, wages are set by collective bargaining.
*GDP (2007, purchasing power parity): $308.9 billion. GDP (2007, official exchange rate): $384.1 billion.
*Annual growth rate (3rd quarter 2007): 2.5%.
*Per capita income (2006, purchasing power parity): $33,897.
*Inflation rate (December 2007): 2.2%.
*Natural resources: Forests, hydroelectric power, iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, tungsten, uranium, arsenic, feldspar, timber.
*Agriculture (2006, 2.2% of GDP): Products--dairy products, meat, grains (barley, wheat), sugar beets, potatoes, wood. Arable land--6 million acres.
*Industry (2006, 38% of GDP): Types--machinery/metal products (iron and steel), electrical equipment, aircraft, paper products, precision equipment (bearings, radio and telephone parts, armaments), wood pulp and paper products, processed foods.
*Services (2006, 59.8% of GDP): Types--telecommunications, computer equipment, biotech.
*Trade: Exports (2006)--$148.8 billion. Types--machinery, transport equipment, motor vehicles, wood products, paper, pulp, chemicals, iron and steel products, and manufactured goods. Major trading partners, exports (2007)--Germany 9.9%, U.S. 9.3%, Norway 9.1%, U.K. 7.2%, EU total 59.7%. *Imports (2006)--$127.3 billion. Types--machinery, petroleum and petroleum products, chemicals, motor vehicles, iron and steel, foodstuffs, clothing. Major trading partners, imports (2007)--Germany 18.6%, Denmark 8.9%, Norway 8.5%, U.K. 6.9%, Netherlands 6.1%, Finland 6.0%, France 4.9%.

==History==
During the seventh and eighth centuries, the Swedes were merchant seamen well known for their far-reaching trade. In the ninth century, Nordic Vikings raided and ravaged the European continent as far as the Black and Caspian Seas. During the 11th and 12th centuries, Sweden gradually became a unified Christian kingdom that later included Finland. Queen Margaret of Denmark united all the Nordic lands in the "Kalmar Union" in 1397. Continual tension within the countries and within the union gradually led to open conflict between the Swedes and the Danes in the 15th century. The union's final disintegration in the early 16th century brought on a long-lived rivalry between Norway and Denmark on one side and Sweden and Finland on the other.

In the 16th century, Gustav Vasa fought for an independent Sweden, crushing an attempt to restore the Kalmar Union and laying the foundation for modern Sweden. At the same time, he broke with the Catholic Church and established the Reformation. During the 17th century, after winning wars against Denmark, Russia, and Poland, Sweden-Finland (with scarcely more than 1 million inhabitants) emerged as a great power. Its contributions during the Thirty Years War under Gustav II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus) determined the political as well as the religious balance of power in Europe. By 1658, Sweden ruled several provinces of Denmark as well as what is now Finland, Ingermanland (in which St. Petersburg is located), Estonia, Latvia, and important coastal towns and other areas of northern Germany.

Russia, Saxony-Poland, and Denmark-Norway pooled their power in 1700 and attacked the Swedish-Finnish empire. Although the young Swedish King Karl XII (also known as Charles XII) won spectacular victories in the early years of the Great Northern War, his plan to attack Moscow and force Russia into peace proved too ambitious; he fell in battle in 1718. In the subsequent peace treaties, the allied powers, joined by Prussia and England-Hanover, ended Sweden's reign as a great power.

Sweden suffered further territorial losses during the Napoleonic wars and was forced to cede Finland to Russia in 1809. The following year, the Swedish King's adopted heir, French Marshal Bernadotte, was elected Crown Prince as Karl Johan by the Riksdag (parliament). In 1813, his forces joined the allies against Napoleon. The Congress of Vienna compensated Sweden for its lost German territory through a merger of the Swedish and Norwegian crowns in a dual monarchy. Sweden's last war was fought in 1814. It was a brief confrontation with Norway to restrain their demands for independence. The war resulted in Norway entering into union with Sweden, but with its own constitution and parliament. The Sweden-Norway union was peacefully dissolved at Norway's request in 1905.

Sweden's predominantly agricultural economy shifted gradually from village to private farm-based agriculture during the Industrial Revolution, but this change failed to bring economic and social improvements commensurate with the rate of population growth. About 1 million Swedes immigrated to the United States between 1850 and 1890.

The 19th century was marked by the emergence of a liberal opposition press, the abolition of guild monopolies in trade and manufacturing in favor of free enterprise, the introduction of taxation and voting reforms, the installation of a national military service, and the rise in the electorate of three major party groups--Social Democratic Party, Liberal Party, and Conservative Party.

During and after World War I, in which Sweden remained neutral, the country benefited from the worldwide demand for Swedish steel, ball bearings, wood pulp, and matches. Postwar prosperity provided the foundations for the social welfare policies characteristic of modern Sweden. Foreign policy concerns in the 1930s centered on Soviet and German expansionism, which stimulated abortive efforts at Nordic defense cooperation. Sweden followed a policy of armed neutrality during World War II (although thousands of Swedish volunteers fought in the [[Winter War]]); however, it did permit German troops to pass through its territory to and from occupation duties in its neighbour, [[Norway]], and it supplied the Nazi regime with steel and much needed ball-bearings. It currently remains nonaligned.

Sweden became a member of the European Union (EU) in 1995. In September 2003 Sweden held a referendum on entering the European Monetary Union. The Swedish people rejected participation, with 56% voting against and 42% for. All parliamentary parties pledged to respect the outcome of the referendum. No new referendum is planned for the foreseeable future.

==Some Notable Swedes==
* [[Alfred Nobel]], instigator of the [[Nobel Prize]]
* [[Anders Celsius]], inventor of the world standard [[Celsius scale]].
* Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) inventor of the modern system of classifying all lifeforms.
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA - 1970's rock group comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus, Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog.
* Dag Hammarskjöld
* Astrid Lindgren
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme
* Ingemar Bergman
* Roxette
* Jussi Bjoeling
* Laurentius Petri, archbishop and reformer
* Lewi Pethrus (1884–1974), founder of the Swedish Pentecostal movement
* Olaus Petri, reformer
* Nathan Söderblom, archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate
* Erik Trolle, bishop and statesman
* Kettil Karlsson Vasa, bishop and statesman
* Saint Birgitta (1303–1373), patron saint of Europe
* Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), writer, everything, popular, is, wrong mystic and philosopher
* Åsa Waldau, cult leader, the 'Bride of Christ'

==References==
*[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]
*[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]
*http://www.lo.se
*http://www.moderaterna.se
*http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&a=324428
*http://www.gluefox.com
*[http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/sweden.html History of Sweden]
* Forte, Angelo. Oram, Richard. Pedersen, Frederik. ''Viking Empires''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005
* Hudson, Benjamin. ''Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in North America''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
* http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918
* http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm
* http://www.skattebetalarna.se
* http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
* http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html
* http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____12355.aspx
* [http://www.sci.fi/~fta/f19-1.htm F19, Swedish Volunteer Unit in Finland during the Winter War]

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Sweden]]

Bushism

2009-01-30T13:57:38Z

JohnKite: Removed the comment on him attracting more attention (because it's just speculation)

{{speedy}}
'''Bushism''' is the term coined by [[liberals]]{{fact|date=3nov08}} to refer to incoherent, mispronounced, or completely fabricated words or phrases stated by [[George W. Bush]]. Bushisms include the mangling of the English language, egregious violations of grammar rules, and other odd phrases.

The sheer existence of the term "Bushism" might be taken as a sign that Bush mangles the language significantly more (or more significantly) than other politicians. However, it is well known that all politicians (and public speakers in general) have occasional slips of the tongue.

Several books books have been written on the subject. Among them Jacob Weisberger's ''"George W. Bushisms : The Slate Book of The Accidental Wit and Wisdom of our 43rd President''".

Some examples:

*"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-5.html February 2001]</ref>
*"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html August 2004]</ref>
*"We had a chance to visit with Teresa Nelson who's a parent, and a mom or a dad."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030909-3.html September 2003]</ref>
*"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601015_pf.html Washington Post]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

== Related articles ==
*[[Liberal bias]]

[[Category: Liberal Bias]]
[[Category: Political Terms]]

Bushism

2009-01-30T13:55:05Z

JohnKite:

{{speedy}}
'''Bushism''' is the term coined by [[liberals]]{{fact|date=3nov08}} to refer to incoherent, mispronounced, or completely fabricated words or phrases stated by [[George W. Bush]]. Bushisms include the mangling of the English language, egregious violations of grammar rules, and other odd phrases.

The sheer existence of the term "Bushism" might be taken as a sign that Bush mangles the language significantly more (or more significantly) than other politicians. However, it is well known that all politicians (and public speakers in general) have occasional slips of the tongue. A possible explanation for the existence of the term is that George Bush, being the President of the United States, simply attracts more attention (both by supporters and detractors worldwide) than others.

Several books books have been written on the subject. Among them Jacob Weisberger's ''"George W. Bushisms : The Slate Book of The Accidental Wit and Wisdom of our 43rd President''".

Some examples:

*"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-5.html February 2001]</ref>
*"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html August 2004]</ref>
*"We had a chance to visit with Teresa Nelson who's a parent, and a mom or a dad."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030909-3.html September 2003]</ref>
*"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601015_pf.html Washington Post]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

== Related articles ==
*[[Liberal bias]]

[[Category: Liberal Bias]]
[[Category: Political Terms]]

Bushism

2009-01-30T13:54:34Z

JohnKite: Added a book on the subject

{{speedy}}
'''Bushism''' is the term coined by [[liberals]]{{fact|date=3nov08}} to refer to incoherent, mispronounced, or completely fabricated words or phrases stated by [[George W. Bush]]. Bushisms include the mangling of the English language, egregious violations of grammar rules, and other odd phrases.

The sheer existence of the term "Bushism" might be taken as a sign that Bush mangles the language significantly more (or more significantly) than other politicians. However, it is well known that all politicians (and public speakers in general) have occasional slips of the tongue. A possible explanation for the existence of the term is that George Bush, being the President of the United States, simply attracts more attention (both by supporters and detractors worldwide) than others.

Several books books have been written on the subject. Among them Jacob Weisberger's ''"George W. Bushisms: George W. Bushisms : The Slate Book of The Accidental Wit and Wisdom of our 43rd President''".

Some examples:

*"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-5.html February 2001]</ref>
*"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html August 2004]</ref>
*"We had a chance to visit with Teresa Nelson who's a parent, and a mom or a dad."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030909-3.html September 2003]</ref>
*"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601015_pf.html Washington Post]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

== Related articles ==
*[[Liberal bias]]

[[Category: Liberal Bias]]
[[Category: Political Terms]]

Bushism

2009-01-30T13:51:00Z

JohnKite: Completed the "is our children learning" quote

{{speedy}}
'''Bushism''' is the term coined by [[liberals]]{{fact|date=3nov08}} to refer to incoherent, mispronounced, or completely fabricated words or phrases stated by [[George W. Bush]]. Bushisms include the mangling of the English language, egregious violations of grammar rules, and other odd phrases.

The sheer existence of the term "Bushism" might be taken as a sign that Bush mangles the language significantly more (or more significantly) than other politicians. However, it is well known that all politicians (and public speakers in general) have occasional slips of the tongue. A possible explanation for the existence of the term is that George Bush, being the President of the United States, simply attracts more attention (both by supporters and detractors worldwide) than others.

Some examples:

*"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-5.html February 2001]</ref>
*"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html August 2004]</ref>
*"We had a chance to visit with Teresa Nelson who's a parent, and a mom or a dad."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030909-3.html September 2003]</ref>
*"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601015_pf.html Washington Post]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

== Related articles ==
*[[Liberal bias]]

[[Category: Liberal Bias]]
[[Category: Political Terms]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-28T16:42:39Z

JohnKite: /* Allegedly born in Honolulu */

{{Controversial}}
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== 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)
::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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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

==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.

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

==References (please leave at bottom of page)==
{{Reflist}}

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2009-01-28T16:33:00Z

JohnKite: /* Is this really as big as people make it out to be? */

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry. 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

'''
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."

Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.

== Very Informative ==
'''

Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?

== Is this real? ==

This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

== Agendas ==
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion.

I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.

== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda wrong, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Hey, now... ==
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==What the hell?==

The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

==Politics and science==

Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]
==Liberal Deceit==
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
*Good idea! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Sources?==

Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Specific suggestion:
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== Mottos? ==

The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== References: "small looks better" ==

Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:George W. Bush

2009-01-28T16:19:24Z

JohnKite: /* Unscourced */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

:::Didn't you hear? This is conservapedia, a place where ignorance coalesces into a gungy goo of people who think their opinions are always right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a goshdang Communist! Liberal Media, haha, oh boy that's a larf.

:::::Everyone thinks their opinions are right. That's why they're their opinions. But you are right, the phrase "liberal media" has become an oft-lampooned indication of conservative paranoia. The use of it will only serve to make this article sound Stephen Colbert-ish. Not only do I think the phrase should be deleted; I think it should become the policy of conservapedia to strive to avoid it in the future. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::The [[Liberal-Biased Media]] is the GOP's equivalent of Hillary Clinton's [[Vast Right-wing Conspiracy]], as well as being an all-purpose scapegoat from when the facts turn out to have an anti-Bush agenda. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Considering this page has been locked, I'd greatly appreciate it if an administrator would remove this clearly biased phrase.--[[User:Ge Ming|Ge Ming]] 15:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::There IS no Liberal Media! [[User:MrDubya|MrDubya]] 01:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

*Don't you mean "there is no cabal!" ? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:39, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

It is well known that the media is overwelmingaly liberal. This is based on facts. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:Based on facts that come from the liberal media itself! Mindblowing, isn't it?

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The liberals would probably be far more intelligent than the people that frequent this site and go to wikipedia [[User:You're wrong|You're wrong]] 15:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::communists can go to http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd rather Communism if Fascism were the other choice. If you really need to think you're always right to sleep at night, then be my guest my lil' Yank friend.

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

If they didn't know bush was republican we don't want them on the site.

::I think by "democratic," the above poster (who failed to sign his/her comment) was referring to the political idea of democracy rather than the American political party, [[User:Ballon|Ballon]]. And let's try not to deride each other with pejoratives like "commie" and "fascist." Anyway, I agree that this page needs to be watched closely. It is an obvious location for vandalism. However, very sensible changes (exempli gratia: moving references of George Bush's religious values to a section other than "Foreign Policy") have been suggested on this page, and they seem to have been largely ignored. This article is not passable in its current state. The sysops must either unlock the page or at the very least make changes that we agree upon on this talk page.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
Conservapedia will go absolutely nowhere if its alternative viewpoints from wikipedia consist purerly in pejorative adjectives and vague speculative references. Disprove alternative opinions with facts, not derogatory adjectives and slanted phrases. I would provide examples, but they are more than clear and numerous.

This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

Does it bother the reader that while citing Exxon Mobile profits being at record highs, gas prices also are at record highs? This may not be a very good supporting argument as it raises suspicion that our current American way of life is at risk due to the high costs of fuel, which is hurting real estate as more and more people re-urbanize living closer to their workplaces in the city as well as the overall economy as people go out less because they want to conserve fuel. {{unsigned|Tchen}}
::Does it bother the reader that [[China]] has one fifth of the planets population and only 1% drive cars? Does it bother the reader that China's economy is growing at 17%? Does it bother the reader that when 2% of China's population own cars, gas will go from $3 to $6 per gallon? Does it bother the reader that US politicians in Washington DC can nothing about this? Does it bother readers that implied solution here is to exterminate the Chinese? Yes, it does bother this reader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

Per the article quoted: “Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Such frequently found mistakes underlines why Conservapedia is more propaganda than an online encyclopedia and should never be used as a source of information. The information is at best one sided, and more frequently, blantently false. The truth does not have a conservative or liberal slant. There seems to be a trend, however, in the last 12 or so years of American political media to baselessly proclaim an extream slant in media. Just because the reader does not like the truth does not mean that the carrier is slanted.
Artical

:"As we all know, the facts have an anti-Bush agenda." -- Steven Colbert. (Or, to be more accurate, it looks like Bush has an anti-facts agenda. :( --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

: Indeed. No mention of the 8 trillion (is it 9 now) debt? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 20:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Debt only matters if you ever intend to pay it off. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:29, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::not true, it also matters if you want to get lent more money, and it is also a matter of principal-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:38, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Economy ==

''Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well [5]. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.[6] Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.[7] Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.[8]''

The information in this section appears to have either been written by a liberal who was interested in subtly undermining the informative authority of this particular entry (and possibly Conservapedia in general), or by someone who is perhaps good-intentioned but very badly informed.

First of all, using Exxon-Mobil and executive salary increases as an indication of how much Bush has done for the economy is actually quite bad press for him. The majority of Americans are not voting to line the pockets of the people at the very top. They prefer to have their own pockets lined, even if it is just in small ways, like in tax cuts for the middle class. Suggesting that Bush has done good for our economy as evidenced by the economic boon of the elite would seem to give credit to Bush's detractors who have accused him of being concerned only with his "oil buddies" and largest contributors. Let's not add more wood to that fire, please. That's how we lost the mid-terms - shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second point, please, whoever has write permissions, clean up the spelling errors at the very least (Exxon-Mobile, signle - in this section)

Third, someone else cited the error in referencing January 2000 as the lowest point of the stock market. In addition to their points (including the quote from the article that was supposedly used as reference for that inaccurate "fact"), I think it's important to clarify that while the market has never dropped as low as it did following the crash of 1929, the *percentage* drop could again be as great as it was in 1929. In 1929 the percentage drop was 23%. In 1987, the crash of October caused a dip of 22.7%. The actual numbers of 1929 were in the 200-400 range, whereas the Dow Jones is over 12,000 right now. If, in the modern era, the DJIA ever dropped as low as it did in 1929, i.e., down ot the 200-400 range, then we may as well prepare for Armageddon, because the state of the world would probably be *that* bad.

Fourth, is it necessary to place A.D. after every year, even when it is obvious that the referenced year is In the Year of Our Lord (i.e. Anno Domini)? It seems unnecessary, and certainly cumbersome to have A.D. following years that are obviously referring to U.S. political events. Our conservative audience is not so dumb as to be confused about whether the Clinton administration of the year 2000 is in reference to 2000 years before or 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mostly I agree that we should not be concerned about the stereotypes our liberal brothers and sisters have placed upon us, but when possible for us to avoid looking stupid and playing into the stereotypes the liberals have assigned to us, I think we ought do so.

Fifth, the unemployment rate is dropping for March 2007, and this is wonderful and it speaks well of Bush's handling of the economy. It is not the lowest rate of all time, however. I don't feel compelled to provide sources here, because this information is readily available in under 2 minutes of searching for "U.S." and "unemployment rate" on any search engine of your choosing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, can tell you that the lowest unemployment rate of the last 60 years was in 1953 at just under 3%. It's an easy fact to check, and a ridiculous error to lock into an entry about our President. There are true pieces of information about President Bush that make him worthy of admiration. There is no need to attempt to bolster his image with false information.

And finally, let's please be honest about the minimum wage situation. The decision to raise the minimum wage is controversial among conservatives, and I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that suggests Bush supports, in isolation, the idea of raising the minimum wage (i.e. without tax-cuts for small-businesses also tacked on as a proviso). In terms of economic growth, raising the minimum wage may not be helpful, and everything I have read about President Bush seems to indicate that he knows that. So any suggestion that his personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be raised is questionable. Aside from his personal opinion, in his professional capacity, he most certainly hasn't been placed in a position of "working with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a livable level." The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed in both the House and the Senate, but it has not yet been presented to our President to be signed into law, because it is pending committee review. Additionally, crediting Bush with "working with Democrats" on this is erroneous. Bush has reached across partisan lines on many occasions, but this particular bill was brought on entirely by Democratic feather-ruffling during their "First 100-Hours" campaign. It was an attempt by the Dems to make a garish display of their new "authority," having gained the majority in Congress.

:For starters, what powers do the executive branch have over economics? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::My personal political philosophies aside, I completely agree that Exxon-Mobile is probably the worst company that could have been chosen to show support for Bush's economic policies. This is an encyclopedia for conservatives, but if it's going to stand up to the criticisms of the liberal community and not be a major source of embarrassment for conservatives as a whole, it must hold itself to a higher level of political awareness. Whether one believes Exxon-Mobile's booming business is proof the economy is in great shape or not, the majority of those who read this (including conservatives) will fall out of their chairs when they read that. I guarantee you, liberal citizens all across America will copy and paste the paragraph into their blogs for their readers to laugh at.

::This is probably the most important article on conservapedia. It HAS to be beyond reproof. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: When is this going to be fixed? The "lowest unemployment rate in history" is not true, it was far lower in the 60s, and lower during the later years of the Clinton administrator. The claim isn't even supported by the reference, which claims "the lowest in five years", which I suppose is true enough. Concise and fact based indeed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridiculous claim ==

"He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region."

Eh, ok? Source? A silly attempt to try to create some kind of sympathy for the man. It's like saying "Jesus was very kind." in his entry. It has got nothing to do with facts and people should be given facts on this site and then determine for themselves if Jesus was kind and if GWB is working tirelessly.

:Agreed. Authors establish bias effectively by utilizing fact selectivity and through awareness of the perspective from which those facts are related. Ineffective authors establish bias by simply writing their opinions. An openly biased article is not the same thing as an opinion column. An encyclopedia does not need to allow itself to be tainted with opinions in order to be biased. This is supported by conservapedia itself in its article "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia." (Wikipedia, however biased it may or may not be, never allows anything close to the candid opinions of its editors to pollute articles.)
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Hard Work" ==

George W Bush has never done a day's hard work in his lifetime.

Oh wait, he was having trouble reading his children's book when he heard about 9/11. Dang, forgot about that.

:Sarcasm and exaggeration are the didactic devices of idiots.
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: and just insulting people to disprove their point is also idiotic. and sarcasm isn't idiotic at all its actually quite clever-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Ridicolous Article ==

This whole article is a joke, right? How can you put this out as fact when it has been debunked so many times?

==Better Picture==
[[Image:Busio.jpeg|thumb|right]]

::I agree, that is a much better picture. It's the same one used on wikipedia, but it's public domain. I'd use it, but get a higher resolution copy of the image at http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/2003-02/030114-O-0000D-001.jpg
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
This article does not just neglect important information, but also gives incorrect facts. Al Gore won the popular vote in the 200 election. Also, this I laugh out loud that people are actually believing this conservopedia crap.
:writing unsigned comments is quite annoying, although i agree about the conservapedia point (tip there was no 200 election in america)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* The article needs to have <tt style="background-color:#bfb"><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}</nowiki></tt> added just above the categories at the bottom, so its category sortkey is set properly. Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Military Commanders]]</nowiki>
:He is after all our [[Commander in Chief]] leading the hugely successful war against [[terrorism]] in [[Iraq]] and elswhere.
::"Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"Hugely successful?" I missed the announcement that they'd caught Osama Bin Laden. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Poor addition to a poor article ==

You neglected to mention that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by a half-million votes. Your refusal to address it is just plain sad. Jesus hates liars.

The line, "Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list" should be quickly deleted from this article. I know wikipedia doesn't allow such B.S. qualifiers as "many people feel," and neither should conservapedia if it's going to be taken seriously. Just state that he's a Christian. How profound his Christian-ness is is both irrelevant and unquantifiable.

At least move it out of the "Foreign Policy" section of the article.

--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with the first paragraph by Mechrobioticon, but I do agree with the second paragraph. I think that faith statement should be moved from the "Foreign Policy" section to a new "Faith" section. There is tons of material from the book ''God and George W. Bush''. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 02:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, maybe requesting that the reference be completely omitted is a little harsh to ask of a conservative encyclopedia, but I still stand by my statement that it needs to be drastically reworded. "Many people feel" is simply a phrase that should never be used in scholarly writing. It's an obvious euphemism for "I feel," and a bad attempt to cover up personal bias. It makes the article appear very amateurish and will become a point of ridicule for knowledgeable readers.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who cares how 'sincere' he is? [[Marshall Applewhite]] was 'sincere', but that didn't stop him from being lethally deluded. Or are we hoping the [[Great Pumpkin]] will visit Bush this Halloween? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree that how "profound" or "sincere" one's faith in something is is a poor indicator of one's character (not to mention highly arbitrary and impossible to confirm), but this isn't my encyclopedia. It's conservapedia. The ideas of the secular humanist must yield to the consensus of the conservative majority. I think that even bearing this fact, however, that there is a good case to be made for the removal of the sentences in question on the basis that they are, in fact, an opinion that can't be indisputably confirmed. But again, that's not my place to decide, and if the conservative editors and sysops of conservapedia say "it stays," then it stays. Secularists should always remember that we are here to advise and help, not to ridicule and lampoon.
::::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 16:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== No information ==

There's no information about how GWB is being named the Worst President in History [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history] by alot of people, as well as having some of the lowest approval ratings ever.[http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm][http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml] And lack of information about major events in his presidency. Such as Katarina, September 11th and stuff like that.

==No Information==
Period. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, this is more like the bio somebody writes for the program to their high school musical. Could it be more bland? Ish. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing about his childhood, his college, or his time as Texas governor. And there never will be. Conservapedia doesn't trust their editors to write about this icon. (They might mention, for instance, his drunk driving arrest or allegations of cocaine use). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Someone tell me when this article is fixed ==

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that this article is hopeless. It's not my opinion that George W. Bush's "sincere and profound faith in God" doesn't belong in the foreign policy section of this article. It's a demonstrable fact. Someone tell me what qualifies his religion as a formal written policy by which America's interactions with other countries are deliberated, and I will shut up. The addition is also poorly written, vague, unscholarly, conjectural, impossible to confirm, and dripping with bias and ethnocentrism, but I'll ignore that. Just move it. Please just move it. If this ever happens, please email me at happyhealey@gmail.com, and will resume contributing to Conservapedia. It's ludicrous for a wiki project to be unable to correct its own typographical errors. It's been a month. A whole month. If this were Wikipedia it would have been corrected in less than five minutes. This is, without exaggeration, pitiful.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, at least you changed the picture. Good to know the article isn't completely stagnant.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== How can I edit this article? ==

There are some spelling mistakes (Exxon Mobil not Exxon Mobile) and grammar that need correcting but I can't get on to fix it. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 11:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Could someone add "Category:Christian warriors" which I created specifically for Dubya?[[User:Muschifresser|Muschifresser]] 08:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Protected articles ==

Protected articles infringe on the right to free speech. I am greatly opposed to this policy. Bush happens to be one of my favorite people and you are depriving the fact that I can't contribute to this article is appalling. I know you are worried about vandals, but you are just punishing the innocent. The world is being deprived of my great knowledge, these are sad times.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Eavesdropping program ==

When it becomes possible to edit this article again, something should be added about the NSA eavesdropping program. As today's New York Times indicates, this program is extremely controversial even among conservatives and almost led to the resignations of Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller.--[[User:Amyz]] 10:04, May 16, 2007 (EDT)

== This is one sad page... ==

....And since it's locked, only the syspos (who have enough to do as it is) can DO anything with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 02:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

*I quite agree, Gulik3. Me, for instance, I have been reading your many posts, all seeming to be unhappy ones. I hope you will straighten us out with good, solid examples of article production so that we may learn from you! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's be a good trick on my part, seeing how everything worth editing is locked. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::There actually is a real simple way around that: try, for the first time in known history, to actually write an article according to WP's NPOV. It would actually work here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Wikipedia's''' NPOV? The onbe that's "Six times more Liberal than America"? That NPOV? I can try... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yep. Since WP does not enforce its only policies, perhaps we can have the first ever NPOV article written here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Wait, wait. So Wikipedia has "a horrible anti-liberal" and "Anti American" bias, and you follow its rules on NPOV? [[User:NaglfarorGleipnir|NaglfarorGleipnir]] 18:58, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

== template ==
I think this article should use a template similar to the others in Presidents of the United States category.. see [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] for example. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:03, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Public Criticisms? ==
Shouldn't Bush's page have a public criticisms page as suggested in the manual of style? It is an issue significant to his presidency. And what about his handling of 9-11? And why does the economic section sound sarcastic with respect tp executive salaries. This article needs a lot of help. [[User:Pokowpane|Pokowpane]] 18:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:What? You think you can do it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:28, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

This page should have a criticism title like those for other President's. I don't think it has much credibility unless it does. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 10:24, 18 June 2007

:Absolutely. Unless it's Conservapedia policy not to report on criticism of presidents. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Comment ==

Bush had an alcohol problem until 1986, as he has openly admitted in the past. The severity of this problem remains open to doubt. Comment by User: Darkmind1970 (08:23, 4 January 2008)

== Threats ==

We can't have a threats section. Otherwise, every liberal/communist would be on it!

== Economic Policy ==

To write that Bush worked with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage is a little disingenuous. The minimum wage increase was a platform of the 2006 Democrats. While Bush didn't specifically issue a veto threat, as per the article referenced, the White House wanted tax breaks for small businesses to offset the cost to those businesses. I think the current revision is a better recount of the minimum wage increase. It credits both Democrats, as it was their issue, as well as Bush, who signed the provision after he got what he wanted in the bill.

I'm not trying to vandalize, merely provide more context to the actions.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:Yes, "worked with" is the operative phrase. In general, Republicans oppose increases in the [[minimum wage]], on the grounds that it hurts [[inner city]] youth - making it harder for them to get [[entry-level]] jobs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:44, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Poll #'s Are Wrong ==

His most recent poll rating, according to ARG on 2/20/08, is 19%! http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

user:armstongandmiller says:

i heard that his approval rating dropped below that of broccoli

==Faith==

"Most people feel his faith is sincere and profound". Evidence please? Polls showing this to be true? This is clearly the writer's personal belief and not an encyclopedic fact. Please remove this sentence. {{unsigned|StephenS}}

:Absolutely. Without saying who it is that feels this, and quoting some reference to back it up, this is just puffery. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:33, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Cats==
Please add this article to [[:Category:Texas]] and [[:Category:United States Governors]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 16:25, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==biased reports==
"mostly due to biased media reports". This statement about the President's popularity clearly reflects the writer's opinion. Do we have a reference to back it up? If not, why is it here? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Click the wikilink on the word "bias" in the section. Also check out [[media bias]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:54, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Read those. Nothing there indicates that Bush's falling polls are the fault of liberal media. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Daphnea has a point, I think the American populace is more upset that gas prices are skyrocketing while we have two oilmen in the Whitehouse and Americans are dying overseas for oil. I don't see a media bias in this, or if there is, how this bias isn't reflective of reality (I mean, 4.34?! a gallon)--[[User:MarkS|MarkS]] 16:32, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==2000 election controversy==

Why is there no mention at all of the 2000 Florida vote controversy? Surely we can't ignore what happened there? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:There is an article on the [[United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000|2000 election]] where such material would be more appropriate. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:57, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps a link to that in the first paragraph where the 2000 election is mentioned would be helpful for readers. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:03, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Early life==
No mention of anything before governorship? No mention of National Guard? What exactly are we allowed to write in this article? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Write up what you would like added and post it here. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:19, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Economic Legacy?==

The current version of Bush's economic legacy is no longer valid, and leaves out any mention of the record deficits run up during his administration. I'm willing to put together an objective, properly referenced record of the positive and negative impact this administration has had on the US economy, if someone will pledge to unlock and post it so it's not a wast of time. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:13, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:It seems like this would be a good time to revise the "Economic Legacy" section. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:38, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
:This page needs to be unlocked so this section can be edited - it's so out of date it hurts the usefulness of this site for students looking to use it as a reference. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:20, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::I want to remind you not to use word hyperbole to make an unwarranted point. As a percent of GDP, the deficits aren't even close to being "records". I hope that any alterations you make will accurately reflect this and treat it in a balanced way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:33, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks, and I'll be careful to be fair. My intention is to divide the Bush economic legacy into three phases - one for his first administration, one for the first half of his second administration (2005-06), and the third covering 2007-08. This way he can be acknowledged for areas where progress was both made and lost. I'll also cite statistics from the government instead of the media for objectivity. If the page gets hit by vandalism and needs to be locked, I'll post my suggested edits here and you can apply them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:58, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

== Wikilinks ==

Could someone add wikilinks to "Laura Bush" and "United Methodist" in the infobox please? Thank you. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Plg6067's edit ==

I must say that I found his edit very good: up to the point, concise, and... right. Does anyone have any proof on the contrary? --[[User:LadaNiva|LadaNiva]] 16:18, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:Try making some serious edits. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Unscourced==

''"Liberals have accused him of having a barbaric foreign policy, but actually Bill Clinton invaded more countries than Pres. Bush."''

This is a good and valid point, but it needs references. Please cite a scource for both things. It'd be nice if you could get some quotes from more prominent liberals.--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==Still President?==

==Still President?==

This page still reads as though he is the current president. E.g. it says "Serving as president since 2001" and also lines like "when he leaves office". Just a thought. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:19, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:George W. Bush

2009-01-28T16:18:29Z

JohnKite: /* Unscourced */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

:::Didn't you hear? This is conservapedia, a place where ignorance coalesces into a gungy goo of people who think their opinions are always right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a goshdang Communist! Liberal Media, haha, oh boy that's a larf.

:::::Everyone thinks their opinions are right. That's why they're their opinions. But you are right, the phrase "liberal media" has become an oft-lampooned indication of conservative paranoia. The use of it will only serve to make this article sound Stephen Colbert-ish. Not only do I think the phrase should be deleted; I think it should become the policy of conservapedia to strive to avoid it in the future. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::The [[Liberal-Biased Media]] is the GOP's equivalent of Hillary Clinton's [[Vast Right-wing Conspiracy]], as well as being an all-purpose scapegoat from when the facts turn out to have an anti-Bush agenda. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Considering this page has been locked, I'd greatly appreciate it if an administrator would remove this clearly biased phrase.--[[User:Ge Ming|Ge Ming]] 15:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::There IS no Liberal Media! [[User:MrDubya|MrDubya]] 01:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

*Don't you mean "there is no cabal!" ? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:39, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

It is well known that the media is overwelmingaly liberal. This is based on facts. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:Based on facts that come from the liberal media itself! Mindblowing, isn't it?

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The liberals would probably be far more intelligent than the people that frequent this site and go to wikipedia [[User:You're wrong|You're wrong]] 15:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::communists can go to http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd rather Communism if Fascism were the other choice. If you really need to think you're always right to sleep at night, then be my guest my lil' Yank friend.

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

If they didn't know bush was republican we don't want them on the site.

::I think by "democratic," the above poster (who failed to sign his/her comment) was referring to the political idea of democracy rather than the American political party, [[User:Ballon|Ballon]]. And let's try not to deride each other with pejoratives like "commie" and "fascist." Anyway, I agree that this page needs to be watched closely. It is an obvious location for vandalism. However, very sensible changes (exempli gratia: moving references of George Bush's religious values to a section other than "Foreign Policy") have been suggested on this page, and they seem to have been largely ignored. This article is not passable in its current state. The sysops must either unlock the page or at the very least make changes that we agree upon on this talk page.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
Conservapedia will go absolutely nowhere if its alternative viewpoints from wikipedia consist purerly in pejorative adjectives and vague speculative references. Disprove alternative opinions with facts, not derogatory adjectives and slanted phrases. I would provide examples, but they are more than clear and numerous.

This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

Does it bother the reader that while citing Exxon Mobile profits being at record highs, gas prices also are at record highs? This may not be a very good supporting argument as it raises suspicion that our current American way of life is at risk due to the high costs of fuel, which is hurting real estate as more and more people re-urbanize living closer to their workplaces in the city as well as the overall economy as people go out less because they want to conserve fuel. {{unsigned|Tchen}}
::Does it bother the reader that [[China]] has one fifth of the planets population and only 1% drive cars? Does it bother the reader that China's economy is growing at 17%? Does it bother the reader that when 2% of China's population own cars, gas will go from $3 to $6 per gallon? Does it bother the reader that US politicians in Washington DC can nothing about this? Does it bother readers that implied solution here is to exterminate the Chinese? Yes, it does bother this reader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

Per the article quoted: “Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Such frequently found mistakes underlines why Conservapedia is more propaganda than an online encyclopedia and should never be used as a source of information. The information is at best one sided, and more frequently, blantently false. The truth does not have a conservative or liberal slant. There seems to be a trend, however, in the last 12 or so years of American political media to baselessly proclaim an extream slant in media. Just because the reader does not like the truth does not mean that the carrier is slanted.
Artical

:"As we all know, the facts have an anti-Bush agenda." -- Steven Colbert. (Or, to be more accurate, it looks like Bush has an anti-facts agenda. :( --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

: Indeed. No mention of the 8 trillion (is it 9 now) debt? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 20:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Debt only matters if you ever intend to pay it off. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:29, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::not true, it also matters if you want to get lent more money, and it is also a matter of principal-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:38, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Economy ==

''Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well [5]. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.[6] Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.[7] Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.[8]''

The information in this section appears to have either been written by a liberal who was interested in subtly undermining the informative authority of this particular entry (and possibly Conservapedia in general), or by someone who is perhaps good-intentioned but very badly informed.

First of all, using Exxon-Mobil and executive salary increases as an indication of how much Bush has done for the economy is actually quite bad press for him. The majority of Americans are not voting to line the pockets of the people at the very top. They prefer to have their own pockets lined, even if it is just in small ways, like in tax cuts for the middle class. Suggesting that Bush has done good for our economy as evidenced by the economic boon of the elite would seem to give credit to Bush's detractors who have accused him of being concerned only with his "oil buddies" and largest contributors. Let's not add more wood to that fire, please. That's how we lost the mid-terms - shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second point, please, whoever has write permissions, clean up the spelling errors at the very least (Exxon-Mobile, signle - in this section)

Third, someone else cited the error in referencing January 2000 as the lowest point of the stock market. In addition to their points (including the quote from the article that was supposedly used as reference for that inaccurate "fact"), I think it's important to clarify that while the market has never dropped as low as it did following the crash of 1929, the *percentage* drop could again be as great as it was in 1929. In 1929 the percentage drop was 23%. In 1987, the crash of October caused a dip of 22.7%. The actual numbers of 1929 were in the 200-400 range, whereas the Dow Jones is over 12,000 right now. If, in the modern era, the DJIA ever dropped as low as it did in 1929, i.e., down ot the 200-400 range, then we may as well prepare for Armageddon, because the state of the world would probably be *that* bad.

Fourth, is it necessary to place A.D. after every year, even when it is obvious that the referenced year is In the Year of Our Lord (i.e. Anno Domini)? It seems unnecessary, and certainly cumbersome to have A.D. following years that are obviously referring to U.S. political events. Our conservative audience is not so dumb as to be confused about whether the Clinton administration of the year 2000 is in reference to 2000 years before or 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mostly I agree that we should not be concerned about the stereotypes our liberal brothers and sisters have placed upon us, but when possible for us to avoid looking stupid and playing into the stereotypes the liberals have assigned to us, I think we ought do so.

Fifth, the unemployment rate is dropping for March 2007, and this is wonderful and it speaks well of Bush's handling of the economy. It is not the lowest rate of all time, however. I don't feel compelled to provide sources here, because this information is readily available in under 2 minutes of searching for "U.S." and "unemployment rate" on any search engine of your choosing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, can tell you that the lowest unemployment rate of the last 60 years was in 1953 at just under 3%. It's an easy fact to check, and a ridiculous error to lock into an entry about our President. There are true pieces of information about President Bush that make him worthy of admiration. There is no need to attempt to bolster his image with false information.

And finally, let's please be honest about the minimum wage situation. The decision to raise the minimum wage is controversial among conservatives, and I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that suggests Bush supports, in isolation, the idea of raising the minimum wage (i.e. without tax-cuts for small-businesses also tacked on as a proviso). In terms of economic growth, raising the minimum wage may not be helpful, and everything I have read about President Bush seems to indicate that he knows that. So any suggestion that his personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be raised is questionable. Aside from his personal opinion, in his professional capacity, he most certainly hasn't been placed in a position of "working with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a livable level." The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed in both the House and the Senate, but it has not yet been presented to our President to be signed into law, because it is pending committee review. Additionally, crediting Bush with "working with Democrats" on this is erroneous. Bush has reached across partisan lines on many occasions, but this particular bill was brought on entirely by Democratic feather-ruffling during their "First 100-Hours" campaign. It was an attempt by the Dems to make a garish display of their new "authority," having gained the majority in Congress.

:For starters, what powers do the executive branch have over economics? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::My personal political philosophies aside, I completely agree that Exxon-Mobile is probably the worst company that could have been chosen to show support for Bush's economic policies. This is an encyclopedia for conservatives, but if it's going to stand up to the criticisms of the liberal community and not be a major source of embarrassment for conservatives as a whole, it must hold itself to a higher level of political awareness. Whether one believes Exxon-Mobile's booming business is proof the economy is in great shape or not, the majority of those who read this (including conservatives) will fall out of their chairs when they read that. I guarantee you, liberal citizens all across America will copy and paste the paragraph into their blogs for their readers to laugh at.

::This is probably the most important article on conservapedia. It HAS to be beyond reproof. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: When is this going to be fixed? The "lowest unemployment rate in history" is not true, it was far lower in the 60s, and lower during the later years of the Clinton administrator. The claim isn't even supported by the reference, which claims "the lowest in five years", which I suppose is true enough. Concise and fact based indeed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridiculous claim ==

"He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region."

Eh, ok? Source? A silly attempt to try to create some kind of sympathy for the man. It's like saying "Jesus was very kind." in his entry. It has got nothing to do with facts and people should be given facts on this site and then determine for themselves if Jesus was kind and if GWB is working tirelessly.

:Agreed. Authors establish bias effectively by utilizing fact selectivity and through awareness of the perspective from which those facts are related. Ineffective authors establish bias by simply writing their opinions. An openly biased article is not the same thing as an opinion column. An encyclopedia does not need to allow itself to be tainted with opinions in order to be biased. This is supported by conservapedia itself in its article "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia." (Wikipedia, however biased it may or may not be, never allows anything close to the candid opinions of its editors to pollute articles.)
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Hard Work" ==

George W Bush has never done a day's hard work in his lifetime.

Oh wait, he was having trouble reading his children's book when he heard about 9/11. Dang, forgot about that.

:Sarcasm and exaggeration are the didactic devices of idiots.
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: and just insulting people to disprove their point is also idiotic. and sarcasm isn't idiotic at all its actually quite clever-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Ridicolous Article ==

This whole article is a joke, right? How can you put this out as fact when it has been debunked so many times?

==Better Picture==
[[Image:Busio.jpeg|thumb|right]]

::I agree, that is a much better picture. It's the same one used on wikipedia, but it's public domain. I'd use it, but get a higher resolution copy of the image at http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/2003-02/030114-O-0000D-001.jpg
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
This article does not just neglect important information, but also gives incorrect facts. Al Gore won the popular vote in the 200 election. Also, this I laugh out loud that people are actually believing this conservopedia crap.
:writing unsigned comments is quite annoying, although i agree about the conservapedia point (tip there was no 200 election in america)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* The article needs to have <tt style="background-color:#bfb"><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}</nowiki></tt> added just above the categories at the bottom, so its category sortkey is set properly. Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Military Commanders]]</nowiki>
:He is after all our [[Commander in Chief]] leading the hugely successful war against [[terrorism]] in [[Iraq]] and elswhere.
::"Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"Hugely successful?" I missed the announcement that they'd caught Osama Bin Laden. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Poor addition to a poor article ==

You neglected to mention that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by a half-million votes. Your refusal to address it is just plain sad. Jesus hates liars.

The line, "Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list" should be quickly deleted from this article. I know wikipedia doesn't allow such B.S. qualifiers as "many people feel," and neither should conservapedia if it's going to be taken seriously. Just state that he's a Christian. How profound his Christian-ness is is both irrelevant and unquantifiable.

At least move it out of the "Foreign Policy" section of the article.

--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with the first paragraph by Mechrobioticon, but I do agree with the second paragraph. I think that faith statement should be moved from the "Foreign Policy" section to a new "Faith" section. There is tons of material from the book ''God and George W. Bush''. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 02:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, maybe requesting that the reference be completely omitted is a little harsh to ask of a conservative encyclopedia, but I still stand by my statement that it needs to be drastically reworded. "Many people feel" is simply a phrase that should never be used in scholarly writing. It's an obvious euphemism for "I feel," and a bad attempt to cover up personal bias. It makes the article appear very amateurish and will become a point of ridicule for knowledgeable readers.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who cares how 'sincere' he is? [[Marshall Applewhite]] was 'sincere', but that didn't stop him from being lethally deluded. Or are we hoping the [[Great Pumpkin]] will visit Bush this Halloween? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree that how "profound" or "sincere" one's faith in something is is a poor indicator of one's character (not to mention highly arbitrary and impossible to confirm), but this isn't my encyclopedia. It's conservapedia. The ideas of the secular humanist must yield to the consensus of the conservative majority. I think that even bearing this fact, however, that there is a good case to be made for the removal of the sentences in question on the basis that they are, in fact, an opinion that can't be indisputably confirmed. But again, that's not my place to decide, and if the conservative editors and sysops of conservapedia say "it stays," then it stays. Secularists should always remember that we are here to advise and help, not to ridicule and lampoon.
::::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 16:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== No information ==

There's no information about how GWB is being named the Worst President in History [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history] by alot of people, as well as having some of the lowest approval ratings ever.[http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm][http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml] And lack of information about major events in his presidency. Such as Katarina, September 11th and stuff like that.

==No Information==
Period. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, this is more like the bio somebody writes for the program to their high school musical. Could it be more bland? Ish. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing about his childhood, his college, or his time as Texas governor. And there never will be. Conservapedia doesn't trust their editors to write about this icon. (They might mention, for instance, his drunk driving arrest or allegations of cocaine use). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Someone tell me when this article is fixed ==

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that this article is hopeless. It's not my opinion that George W. Bush's "sincere and profound faith in God" doesn't belong in the foreign policy section of this article. It's a demonstrable fact. Someone tell me what qualifies his religion as a formal written policy by which America's interactions with other countries are deliberated, and I will shut up. The addition is also poorly written, vague, unscholarly, conjectural, impossible to confirm, and dripping with bias and ethnocentrism, but I'll ignore that. Just move it. Please just move it. If this ever happens, please email me at happyhealey@gmail.com, and will resume contributing to Conservapedia. It's ludicrous for a wiki project to be unable to correct its own typographical errors. It's been a month. A whole month. If this were Wikipedia it would have been corrected in less than five minutes. This is, without exaggeration, pitiful.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, at least you changed the picture. Good to know the article isn't completely stagnant.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== How can I edit this article? ==

There are some spelling mistakes (Exxon Mobil not Exxon Mobile) and grammar that need correcting but I can't get on to fix it. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 11:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Could someone add "Category:Christian warriors" which I created specifically for Dubya?[[User:Muschifresser|Muschifresser]] 08:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Protected articles ==

Protected articles infringe on the right to free speech. I am greatly opposed to this policy. Bush happens to be one of my favorite people and you are depriving the fact that I can't contribute to this article is appalling. I know you are worried about vandals, but you are just punishing the innocent. The world is being deprived of my great knowledge, these are sad times.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Eavesdropping program ==

When it becomes possible to edit this article again, something should be added about the NSA eavesdropping program. As today's New York Times indicates, this program is extremely controversial even among conservatives and almost led to the resignations of Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller.--[[User:Amyz]] 10:04, May 16, 2007 (EDT)

== This is one sad page... ==

....And since it's locked, only the syspos (who have enough to do as it is) can DO anything with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 02:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

*I quite agree, Gulik3. Me, for instance, I have been reading your many posts, all seeming to be unhappy ones. I hope you will straighten us out with good, solid examples of article production so that we may learn from you! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's be a good trick on my part, seeing how everything worth editing is locked. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::There actually is a real simple way around that: try, for the first time in known history, to actually write an article according to WP's NPOV. It would actually work here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Wikipedia's''' NPOV? The onbe that's "Six times more Liberal than America"? That NPOV? I can try... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yep. Since WP does not enforce its only policies, perhaps we can have the first ever NPOV article written here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Wait, wait. So Wikipedia has "a horrible anti-liberal" and "Anti American" bias, and you follow its rules on NPOV? [[User:NaglfarorGleipnir|NaglfarorGleipnir]] 18:58, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

== template ==
I think this article should use a template similar to the others in Presidents of the United States category.. see [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] for example. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:03, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Public Criticisms? ==
Shouldn't Bush's page have a public criticisms page as suggested in the manual of style? It is an issue significant to his presidency. And what about his handling of 9-11? And why does the economic section sound sarcastic with respect tp executive salaries. This article needs a lot of help. [[User:Pokowpane|Pokowpane]] 18:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:What? You think you can do it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:28, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

This page should have a criticism title like those for other President's. I don't think it has much credibility unless it does. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 10:24, 18 June 2007

:Absolutely. Unless it's Conservapedia policy not to report on criticism of presidents. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Comment ==

Bush had an alcohol problem until 1986, as he has openly admitted in the past. The severity of this problem remains open to doubt. Comment by User: Darkmind1970 (08:23, 4 January 2008)

== Threats ==

We can't have a threats section. Otherwise, every liberal/communist would be on it!

== Economic Policy ==

To write that Bush worked with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage is a little disingenuous. The minimum wage increase was a platform of the 2006 Democrats. While Bush didn't specifically issue a veto threat, as per the article referenced, the White House wanted tax breaks for small businesses to offset the cost to those businesses. I think the current revision is a better recount of the minimum wage increase. It credits both Democrats, as it was their issue, as well as Bush, who signed the provision after he got what he wanted in the bill.

I'm not trying to vandalize, merely provide more context to the actions.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:Yes, "worked with" is the operative phrase. In general, Republicans oppose increases in the [[minimum wage]], on the grounds that it hurts [[inner city]] youth - making it harder for them to get [[entry-level]] jobs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:44, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Poll #'s Are Wrong ==

His most recent poll rating, according to ARG on 2/20/08, is 19%! http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

user:armstongandmiller says:

i heard that his approval rating dropped below that of broccoli

==Faith==

"Most people feel his faith is sincere and profound". Evidence please? Polls showing this to be true? This is clearly the writer's personal belief and not an encyclopedic fact. Please remove this sentence. {{unsigned|StephenS}}

:Absolutely. Without saying who it is that feels this, and quoting some reference to back it up, this is just puffery. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:33, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Cats==
Please add this article to [[:Category:Texas]] and [[:Category:United States Governors]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 16:25, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==biased reports==
"mostly due to biased media reports". This statement about the President's popularity clearly reflects the writer's opinion. Do we have a reference to back it up? If not, why is it here? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Click the wikilink on the word "bias" in the section. Also check out [[media bias]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:54, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Read those. Nothing there indicates that Bush's falling polls are the fault of liberal media. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Daphnea has a point, I think the American populace is more upset that gas prices are skyrocketing while we have two oilmen in the Whitehouse and Americans are dying overseas for oil. I don't see a media bias in this, or if there is, how this bias isn't reflective of reality (I mean, 4.34?! a gallon)--[[User:MarkS|MarkS]] 16:32, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==2000 election controversy==

Why is there no mention at all of the 2000 Florida vote controversy? Surely we can't ignore what happened there? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:There is an article on the [[United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000|2000 election]] where such material would be more appropriate. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:57, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps a link to that in the first paragraph where the 2000 election is mentioned would be helpful for readers. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:03, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Early life==
No mention of anything before governorship? No mention of National Guard? What exactly are we allowed to write in this article? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Write up what you would like added and post it here. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:19, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Economic Legacy?==

The current version of Bush's economic legacy is no longer valid, and leaves out any mention of the record deficits run up during his administration. I'm willing to put together an objective, properly referenced record of the positive and negative impact this administration has had on the US economy, if someone will pledge to unlock and post it so it's not a wast of time. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:13, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:It seems like this would be a good time to revise the "Economic Legacy" section. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:38, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
:This page needs to be unlocked so this section can be edited - it's so out of date it hurts the usefulness of this site for students looking to use it as a reference. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:20, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::I want to remind you not to use word hyperbole to make an unwarranted point. As a percent of GDP, the deficits aren't even close to being "records". I hope that any alterations you make will accurately reflect this and treat it in a balanced way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:33, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks, and I'll be careful to be fair. My intention is to divide the Bush economic legacy into three phases - one for his first administration, one for the first half of his second administration (2005-06), and the third covering 2007-08. This way he can be acknowledged for areas where progress was both made and lost. I'll also cite statistics from the government instead of the media for objectivity. If the page gets hit by vandalism and needs to be locked, I'll post my suggested edits here and you can apply them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:58, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

== Wikilinks ==

Could someone add wikilinks to "Laura Bush" and "United Methodist" in the infobox please? Thank you. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Plg6067's edit ==

I must say that I found his edit very good: up to the point, concise, and... right. Does anyone have any proof on the contrary? --[[User:LadaNiva|LadaNiva]] 16:18, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:Try making some serious edits. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Unscourced==

''"Liberals have accused him of having a barbaric foreign policy, but actually Bill Clinton invaded more countries than Pres. Bush."''

This is a good and valid point, but it needs references. Please cite a scource for both things. It'd be nice if you could get some quotes from more prominent liberals.--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==Still President?==

This page still reads as though he is the current president. E.g. it says "Serving as president since 2001" and also lines like "when he leaves office". Just a thought.

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-28T16:15:01Z

JohnKite: /* Allegedly born in Honolulu */

{{Controversial}}
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== 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)
::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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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

==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.

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

==References (please leave at bottom of page)==
{{Reflist}}

Talk:Bushism

2009-01-28T16:13:48Z

JohnKite: A question

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-28T16:04:59Z

JohnKite: /* Allegedly born in Honolulu */

{{Controversial}}
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== 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)
::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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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

==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.

== 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)

== 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)

== 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.
: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.

==References (please leave at bottom of page)==
{{Reflist}}

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-28T15:56:44Z

JohnKite: Posted a question

{{Controversial}}
Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]
[[/archive6|6]]
[[/archive7|7]]

== 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)
::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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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

==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.

== 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)

== 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)

== 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.

==References (please leave at bottom of page)==
{{Reflist}}