Talk:Barack Obama

For discussion of Imperial Colonization of this article, see Talk:Barack Obama/Colonization

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that. For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

put this image in!!

we gotta get this image in the article--Zoom555 01:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll take it into account. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A long time afterward, this was done (at the end of Section 1). Spıke Ѧ 22:54 9-Mar-10

Small Edits

To me, BDSM should stand for Barack's Directorate of Social Monitoring. I know it's a little thing, but often, little things can make a big difference in these articles.

Also, when it's discussing who Obama is right before it says "and the only one to do so without the benefit of white skin", why not make fun of his over-faithful fans and label him as "the second coming of Christ"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatblondguy (talk • contribs)

Name change?

Dear President Obama

Why are the Cubans still subjected to an embargo ?

I advised you several months ago about a message from Almighty God, who is annoyed with the US Government and their continuing prejudice against the people of Cuba.

Since the problem has not been resolved I will now start to publish you roots and how your family first set up camp in Hawaii.

My concern is your family may have acquired the ID of others for the purpose of obtaining other people's land and property. Here in God's World we call that deception and fraud. I have asked Pope Benedict XVI to endorse my report and make it public when it is completed.

Regards Erik J C Young Lutherian-Christian-Theologist from the family of President J F Kennedy (The Nesbitt Family) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.101.186.131 (talk • contribs)

Cool. By the way, the President doesn't read talk pages. Sorry. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:30, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be funnier if the article gave his name as Obama Bin-Laden Just a suggestion. Sorry if this is stupid.

Maybe Obama Bin-Biden? (User:Serpwntor)

BORING

What is with this? The /Old article is much appropriate.

Obviously this guy can't be made fun of. I see where Uncyclopedia's loyaties lie. Make fun of everyone but their guy.

Dammit, you're right. Tell you what, show us the version that you wrote and we'll put it back up. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 22:54, Aug 25

Are you retarded? There is a much better version of this article at [1]

"He is a well known terrorist who claims his god "Oprah" is commanding him to destroy America." Haha, oh man, so funny lol. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 01:49, Aug 27

Boy, you sure are retarded Led. He got you. Let's change it back. -- Roman Dog Bird!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D 01:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fiiiiiine, since he did get me and all... - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:02, Aug 27

yesss. this article is too boring. please exterminate anyone involved in this boredomness. asap. --150.140.231.200 21:44, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

I triple dog dare you to make a user name, read HTBFANJS, then write 2 articles, and then join Imperial Colonization. You don't even have to be from Great Britain. Then you can help write something less boring. Then again, if you simply prefer patent nonsense, which generally requires less effort, you might like Illogicopedia instead. Its easier to be a critic than a writer. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 04:54, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

this is a piece of shit

This article is neither funny nor smart

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Uncyclopedia:How_To_Be_Funny_And_Not_Just_Stupid

try harder fucktards

say who? • FreddAin't Dedd • • • 22:12 September 27 '09

And you are? Oh, right, a smelly faggot. Well, maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusions like that. Tell us, what would YOU personally find funny in relation to President Obama? Hmm? What should this article be? Don't just wave HTBFANJS at us, we know, damn it. Well, I don't, but I'm sure everyone else does........right? Whatever, you suck, and your grammar is ugly. -- Roman Dog Bird!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D 22:41, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!

I would like to thank you for cleaning this page up, because the last thing our Dear Leader needs is to made fun of. Dear Leader God of the Suns Barack Obama is a sensitive man, and do we need to make him cry? To decent against him? No! We need bipartisanship in following him by not questioning him, and maybe sending people who don't agree with him to special camps to be reprogrammed to follow him. Again, Thank you.

Go ahead and censor us asshole. Hey, Maybe we can buy you a little brown uniform with some S's on it to wear when you do.

LOLOL IMMA RAGED DIXIEPUBLICAN ON TEH INTERNETS LOLOL LIBERNAZIS I M SO ORIJINUL!!111!1 Where the Wild Colins Are - LET THE WILD RUMPUS START! 23:21, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see you have no real argument, and that I am much smarter then you. I now declare myself the winner. GO ME!!!!! YOU SUCK!!!!

Actually, if you were clever enough to see what I was doing, I was doing my impression of what neoconservatives on the internet look like. Which is why they tend to congregate among their own, on Stormfront and Glenn Beck forums. The two are interchangable, just one is funded by rich klan members instead of donations by middle-class klan members. Where the Wild Colins Are - LET THE WILD RUMPUS START! 14:44, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Also: You can sign your posts by hitting the signature button on the bar located on top of the text box when editing. Or by using four tildes after your message. Where the Wild Colins Are - LET THE WILD RUMPUS START! 14:45, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

No, I got what you where trying to do, but it was not funny. In short not only are you unintelligent you are also not funny and uncreative, or a walking abortion as it where. Really you are like a bigoted christian, but in

stead of everyone else going to hell you claim that those who do not agree with you are stupid rednecks. What you failed to relies is that I am truly an enlightened libertarian, and believe in things like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and it's 1st amendment. Also, the :::::only thing we will agree upon is that Glenn Beck is intolerable, but while I might not agree with what he says I will defend his right to the death to say it just like I will support anyones right to say what they want about Obama.

So, basically, you believe in free speech, just as long as that speech expresses the same opinion as your own about the current administration. Protip: If you can write a funny article about Obama from a different angle, you should. The trouble is, trying to write an article that makes a point usually makes for an article that reads like an opinionated rant instead of a humorous spin on the facts. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 23:06, Oct 21

If you listened to me you would see that, unlike you, I don't give a damn about the politics. Like most everyone else I just want very absurd and surreal jokes, and the ability to make fun of anyone or anything. See, if Bush was blocked I would want him undone too. Right now Obama is popular and we want to joke about him however we please. So, your attacks on me making this political is really a hipocritical statement. Maybe you are just trying redirect your guilt on to me?

If you actually read any of the responses given, you would realize that you should sign your comments with the signature button above the edit box or by using four tildes. Also, if you payed attention to what actually goes on around here, you would know that most of us don't want "absurd" and "surreal" jokes because 99% of the time that translates to Chuck Norris and Gay jokes. Satire. We want satire. -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:46, 21 Oct

Satire and absurdism go hand in hand. A very Horatian style if you will. My point isn't that it is not funny either; it is we should have the ability to edit for ourselves. --Joedontyouknow 00:11, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

You can edit the page. Unfortunately for you, so can everyone else with an account, so people can revert you if they don't think what you added is funny. That's how the wiki works. Also: I'm redirecting my guilt for being political onto you? I'm not sure where I mentioned my politics, or why having an opinion about politics is something people should feel guilty about, but whatever. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:44, Oct 22

His life as a newborn

In previous edits, I've fleshed out the 2008 political campaign and made fun of a couple of the fallacies undergirding the various government takeovers of 2009.

Today, I've done some work on the Birthers' charges that Obama isn't a "natural born citizen" and his responses. This issue didn't belong first in the article, except as birth usually is the first thing in chronological order. And I like the section head.

I don't line to wantonly delete previous material, especially the result of something deliberate like a Colonization (versus stuff added by an anonIP). But I have two problems with the footnotes. (1) WorldNetDaily spins facts, exaggerates them, and creates them out of whole cloth for the overt purpose of satisfying its biased readership. (I know this. I only suspect it of the major US networks.) You can tell that my bias is in the same direction as WorldNetDaily, but I do not regard any citation of it as scholarship, and do see it as an attempt to use Uncyclopedia to debate the underlying truth. The only underlying truth that should be debated here is that the Birthers look silly, and Obama and his off-the-mark rebuttals look sillier. (2) There are too many footnotes, so much so that the footnotes set to making fun of themselves--clever, but dangerous to have an article start dabbling in self-awareness. Spıke Ѧ  23:29 26-Oct-09

PS--Two other things for other editors to avoid in this article: (1) the idea that Obama aims to guide the US in a bee-line toward collectivist serfdom, and (2) the idea that Obama's detractors are a seamless herd, operated by remote control by Rush Limbaugh. Not saying either of these ideas is untrue; only that, for people who follow the daily political debate here, any such material will be extremely hard to distinguish from the real thing. Spıke Ѧ  16:58 27-Oct-09

I'm not sure your changes mix well with the theme of the article set during Colonization: the idea of "Obama the tyrannical dictator", exaggerating the claims by the extreme right that Obama is trying to pull us towards socialism/communism to the point of ridiculousness. The whole article is designed to basically mock those claims by comparing Obama to Big Brother in Orwell's 1984, a ridiculous comparison. There are a few people out there that might be extreme enough in their views to believe it, but they are the one's at whose expense the laugh is on.

The vote during Colonization was to go with the concept of "Obama as Big Brother/Dictator" rather than "Obama the Messiah", poking fun at the expense of the far left, and exaggerating all the praise Obama gets from various media sources not to mention the way he won the election, by describing and characterizing him as some sort of religious icon. This article could be written either way, but loses its satire when stripped of exaggerations and shoved into the middle.

That said, I do like the addition with the part about the Birthers and rebuttals - making both sides look silly is what I like to see.

-- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 05:50, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am sure my changes don't mix well because, as I say in the above PS, the extreme claims sound exactly like the daily fare on US radio. A sentence I deleted yesterday, that Obama's "exposure to many different political systems is probably what influenced his socialist and elitist tendencies later in life" was not funny to me because it was indistinguishable--both in its bad scholarship and conjecture, and its conclusion of malevolence--from current political debate.

Obama has proposed government-run health care, using vague legislation that aggravates the two things that had caused the cost crisis (mandates for free care, and the power to sue). Republicans find it expedient to also argue that this is an Orwellian push, and my jury is out on whether Obama has ulterior motives for the excessive ambition of his solution. Passages like the deleted one above read exactly as though a Republican is trying to politick in the article. Likewise, I noted my concern at the citations of unscholarly WorldNetDaily because I could not tell they were humor. The people writing WorldNetDaily are serious about Obama's technical disqualification for the Presidency--and Obama is serious about disposing of the claims (my bulleted list) (by any technique except frontal disproof). You can't mock partisan debate by exaggerating it; it only sounds more serious and real.

It's only when the text turns to the "2010 Enabling Act"--and starts to be censored--that it's clear it's an exaggeration. But the history-of-the-future technique is problematic because it breaks the reader's suspension of disbelief. As with the 2002 "PATRIOT Act," another problem with extrapolating to dictatorship is that the concerns and fears are real. Government power that might be misused is a standing concern of Americans, and assertions that leaders intend to misuse it is a stock argument with no quick disproof.

Regarding "making both sides look silly," I wrestled with how to work in more material about the totally ironic and irrational 2008 campaign between two flawed candidates (four if you count the ridiculous running mates), but it seems to belong in some other article. I had to mention Reverend Wright; and the First Lady, never-proud-of-America until Obama was likely to run it, is waiting in the wings for a cue. Spıke Ѧ  10:44 29-Oct-09

[You broke it]

Sorry Spike, but I preferred the previous version. What is wrong with comedy mirroring reality? That is pretty much the definition of satire. When people have commented on my articles thinking that they should be taken at face value, I take it as a great compliment to the detail and authenticity of the writing.

My absolute favourite part of the article was where it casually states Obama was born in Hawaii, followed by all those references. It's not self-aware. In the writer's mind, it is but a simple outlining of the arguments. Apart from reference 8. That should go. Maybe I have a different perspective over here in England, but those accusations of Obama being born outside the US are ridiculous. There seems nothing untoward in the denials of a stupid conspiracy. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  20:03, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

I think you do have a different perspective; I'd guess that in England you don't see American polemics at full strength. Nothing wrong with comedy mirroring reality, but a "stupid conspiracy" exaggerated for comic effect reads just like the American fare exaggerated for strategic effect. I've laid out details above.

There was the same problem with Islam; it was formerly written as though a Texas redneck Christian were narrating, and slammed Islam as a pernicious threat to the One True Church. But this technique was lost on Muslims writing on the talk page, and on me. It might not be humor. I went in the direction of jabs against their rituals rather than screeds against the institution as a whole, no matter who is claimed to be doing the talking. That seems to be a preferable approach on subjects for which there are real extremists, arguing in dead seriousness. Spıke Ѧ  21:25 29-Oct-09

Now Spike, I generally don't have a problem with your partial rewrite. I'd consider hiding the newborn section with a sighidden tag, so it'd magically appear when a reader scrolls over it, though that may be a bit too technical. Anyway, I think you've improved the article on some notable points. But, in my opinion, you removed a couple of good jokes in the process. Basically, what I'm asking you to do is to compare the previous version with your version and look which jokes you removed and consider if they would add to the humorous value of the article when re-added. Important to keep in mind is to keep the article consistent, but not too consistent. Variation between a humorous tone and a more serious tone doesn't damage an article's consistency. A few silly jokes in between are generally beneficial to the article as well. Footnotes and image captions can differ from the article's text, as long as it's funny. I hope all this was helpful to you in some way. Good luck and keep up the good work. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:28, 30 October 2009

I acknowledge responsibility for changing the direction of the article and am willing to put in some work to make it whole again. The problem is that I might not be the man for the job. Conservative talk radio is always on in my car, claiming Obama intends to enslave America, and the other side is visible in on-line letters to newspapers, claiming Obama's detractors are treasonous saboteurs. The stuff I removed was so close to stuff I hear/read in total seriousness that it made me wonder about the motive of the contributor. I'll take another look and report back. Yes, the "newborn" section is problematic; see above. Spıke Ѧ  01:30 30-Oct-09

Change summary

Comparing the current article to the version of 22-Oct:

• Intro: (1) The move from Illinois state senate to US Senator for Illinois is not funny, it stems from a foreigner's confusion of the two similar-sounding titles, which I resolved by mincing words and killing a footnote. (2) The "supporters say...detractors say" counterpoint understates current rhetoric. Supporters have inner-city school children singing fricking hymns to him. Detractors of a president always say his accomplishments are embellished (and they are, and that is the work of a political staff). I kept the 1984 reference, but appended a joke where Obama confirms it intending to deny it. Separately, I noted his race and on the brevity of his service in the US Senate.
• "Early life and childhood": Documentation of birth became a new section, evidently improved, but problematic in appearing first. The sentence that "exposure to...political systems...influenced his socialist...tendencies" I deleted as it sounds like what you hear here, from the poorer scholars. I deliberately deleted the stuff about volcano-worship, as a digression. There is a new paragraph on Obama the Christian, as both his brand of Christianity and his insistence on what he is are ripe for ridicule. The statement that Obama "arbitrarily" chose Illinois to run is now replaced by relevant irony on his hometown of Chicago.
• "Senate career"--No change in the first paragraph. The second undergoes only technical editing, most notably mincing words to evade the confusion between "Senate" and "Congress." The final sentence is gone because a new section discusses the transition. PS--The footnote that Illinois is the "self-proclaimed most important state in the nation" remains but isn't funny; it could apply to any state and doesn't have anything to do with Obama. Missing entirely from both versions of the article is Obama's frequent rhetorical digressions into personal vanity, such as his arrival as fundamentally transforming a formerly flawed nation.
• "Rise to power"--Section replaced by "Election as President." New first paragraph on deflecting accusations. Added material on Joe the Plumber, including a fantasy magical transformation. Deleted "warming, glowing, warm glow." Deleted paragraph about brainwashing weather balloons. This is now restored, but the latter paragraph still strikes me as too wild. Spıke Ѧ  00:17 2-Nov-09
• "Cementing of power"--I expanded one paragraph, on purchase of institutions, into three as the rationale was so thoroughly ridiculous. The new material also describes two miraculous transformations of spellbound citizens. The remaining text is edited only grammatically (Congress is capitalized; "ratification" is the wrong word).

Where to now?

I am perturbed. For starters, we really see things differently; you got an overview and have remarked on things like a move from Senate to Senate that I find unremarkable; I followed the campaign daily, in-country, and am attracted to joke about the fallacies that both sides used, cacophony that might not even have made it across the Water. The US government is more ridiculous than ever--but more dysfunctional too, with record low approval polls to boot. An article that purports to present Obama from the standpoint of an extreme opponent is unfunny once you have met enough of them. If I had not slowed down my edits, the next stuff I would have changed (PS's above) would have really pissed y'all off. It would be nice to assemble one version with appeal to everyone, but an alternative is different versions for audiences at different levels of detail. Your comments? Spıke Ѧ  02:20 30-Oct-09

He did drugs

Obama did drugs (maijuana, cocaine) in high school. i know uncyclopedia doesn't really deal in fact. But its funny. 86.152.137.131 20:50, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he did; it's in his autobiography. No, it isn't funny, without more work; where would you go with it? In my opinion, Obama's vanity (which could derive from "a little blow") is a better target for humor than his legal transgressions. (The latter includes a dozen unpaid parking tickets--unpaid until his campaign began--in the college town where he famously declared that the cops "acted stupidly.") Unfortunately for joke-writers, Obama's only policy move on illegal drugs--to call off federal prosecution of people acting in good faith under state medical-marijuana law--doesn't expose him as a hypocrite. You could portray Obama as wanting to achieve a drugged-out nation, but that's tamer than what's already here. Spıke Ѧ  23:25 1-Nov-09

In fact, I've tried this, with a new paragraph at the end of Sec. 5 that feeds the Colonizers' theme of gathering American dictatorship as viewed by extremists.

Have also brought back an Obama-as-Superman photo from the pre-Colonization version. I like the progression from this to Obama-as-Mao in the next section. Rather than an attempt throughout the article to show that Obama was steeped in authoritarianism, I like a more factual start that slides into paranoia. A problem not mentioned before is that the final section is too tame. It's clear that by now we are in personality-cult dictatorship; but playful dabbling in Obama's heritage should be moved earlier; the final section should complete the slide, and the illustration should be overtly paranoid. Spıke Ѧ  12:05 2-Nov-09

PS--There is an illustration which, while not insane, would beat the one that's there now. When Obama went to Berlin during his campaign, at one point he raised his hand "as though giving a Nazi salute." This photo ran in the New York Times, and the WorldNetDaily crowd showed that the Times had reversed the photo so it would appear to be his left hand. With a proper caption, this photo might complete the progression. Spıke Ѧ  12:14 2-Nov-09

A separate page?

Hey everyone--Should I take Section 1 (and your meticulously researched footnotes) and make it a separate article, Barack Obama's birth? It's not a big one, but it's self-contained and does ridicule both sides equally, and its presence in the main article is a digression to your preferred theme (gathering presidential megalomania or citizen paranoia, take your pick). Spıke Ѧ  03:46 4-Nov-09

I think you should, for pretty much the same reasons you gave. Personally, I find the "citizen paranoia" of the Conservatives funnier than Obamaism, but maybe that's because I just don't like Conservatives in general. —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!)

Thanks for your reply! The one thing that's clear is that the Obamoids and the paranoids are making utter fools of themselves and the situation is ripe for satire. I'll wait one more day to see if anyone else weighs in. Spıke Ѧ  01:15 7-Nov-09

I agree, they're definitely putting themselves in a position to be made fun of. Mocking extremists in general makes funny topics. :) —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!)

I'm not sure you entirely understand what made the footnotes funny. It's not the writing, the research or the links therein. It is their number. The main article used to completely gloss over the birthplace conspiracy theory. Having a cursory mention followed by those little superscript numbers suggesting a deeper relevance was funny. You cannot do the same joke when an article is about Obama's birth. It doesn't work. If you want to do an article on Obama's birth, that's great. It means the footnote joke can go back to the way it was before and all the extra detail has a place of its own. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  12:31, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

This is now done. Spıke Ѧ  13:09 7-Nov-09

President of the World

Yesterday's contribution by Extra Ordinary (Sec. 7, President of the World) is crudely written but is a better way to finish the article, with its gathering megalomania (or citizen paranoia, take your pick), than Sec. 6, a study of the writings about Obama with a sub-plot that the Ministry of Truth is confiscating all the copies. Spıke Ѧ  12:30 20-Nov-09

• You say crudely, I say 1st draft. Because this article is defended like Fort Knox 24/7, I always test the waters with the basic idea first. This was the only one to survive a day so maybe I'll fine tune it or maybe I won't. If it lasts a month, I'll improve it. OK? Thanks. --Extra Ordinary 03:43, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! Please do fine-tune it! And don't wait a month! Wording needs refinement; concept is sound. The article is defended by a committee of Uncyclopedians (the Colonizers) who revised a previous version of this article according to a plan. At the moment, they may be letting you, and me, experiment. Take my comment above at face value and don't read anything into it: I think "President of the World" is the end-game that the rest of the article was hinting at. Spıke Ѧ  03:56 21-Nov-09

I've cleaned up your contribution clerically. The theme is still a good finish to the article, but it still brings in too many random ideas. If Obama bets the house on the health-care takeover and fails (dooming the rest of his agenda until the 2010 elections), a funnier list of accomplishments might be all the things he "tried" to do (omit the fact that he failed to do them). One problem is that you are trying to make two entirely different points. One is the idea that Obama's meteoric rise to power will continue onto the world stage; the other is the Biblical end-of-days scenario, with Obama as Antichrist. Maybe your section eventually becomes two sections. Spıke Ѧ  11:18 23-Nov-09

It seems a lot choppier with the addition of the "clerical" clean-up. Shouldn't it say has led? The whole idea behind the charismatic leader is that he doesn't accomplish anything, yet the whole world falls at his feet anyway. The world doesn't care about US healthcare reform, yet they think he's the greatest. It reminded me of the one world order which would naturally lead to a one world leader. I'm still working on legitimate reasons for his rise to glory but pretending he succeeded at his attempts to fix things doesn't strike me as funny. --Extra Ordinary 04:11, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of the above paragraph. Today I did indeed separate the new section into two sections; as I said above, the issue of Obama being commended for non-accomplishments is separate from, and prior to, the issue of him moving to the world stage. I also took the items you suggested were in his health-care bill and tried to explain how they might relate to health care rather than just being cute ideas. You reverted much of my work, including these two changes, and threw in the following snippy edit summary: "(Please don't make me explain the concept of line item vetos and the US government's habit of slipping in bullshit which the president has no choice but to negate which makes him look like an ass.)" Regarding line-item vetoes, the concept is simple: The US President has no such power (though most state governors do). The "US government" (specifically, the Congress) does insert bullshit which the President has no choice to sign which often makes him look like an ass--although in the case of Obama, he really has no one else to blame for looking like an ass.

Consequently, I'm reverting your most recent change, but will eagerly accept more gradual changes not affecting the above points. Spıke Ѧ  05:19 1-Dec-09

Finally, someone who understands the idea of collaberation. Didn't mean to be snippy, and I approve of the edits. Thanks. --Extra Ordinary 08:16, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

The President and line-items, continued

Another point about line-items, offered not as a correction but as a possible new direction for humor: In the 2009 "stimulus" package, and now in the health-care bill, Obama has been unusually passive, leaving the details of the bills to Pelosi and Reid and their horse-traders. He didn't and won't have any opinion regarding that $300 million earmark to the State of Louisiana to buy one Senate vote. (So Obama probably wouldn't use a line-item veto, even if he had one. Remember all those abstentions in the Illinois Senate.)

By the way--I think in McCain's Campaign Finance "reform," which GW Bush signed even though it violated ALL the criteria Bush had given for an "acceptable" bill--Bush's most hawkish advisers once told him to just strike out some sections (using one of his notorious "signing statements"), just to see if the Supreme Court would let him get away with it. He did not.

Anyway, unfamiliarity with the contents of the bill is what has led Obama to be laughably vague. He talks about destiny and identity and history, not what's in the bill. His opponents are equally laughable--Sarah Palin's "Death Panels" is literally false (though it may resonate) and is easy to exaggerate for humor. In short, both Obama and his adversaries are ridiculous, as they were in the matter of Barack Obama's birth. Spıke Ѧ  14:56 2-Dec-09

Ok, line item vetoes aside (meaning - will look up and try to understand later), I've noticed that many presidents fall into the "unfamiliarity and laughably vague understanding of bill contents" shortly after assuming office. Last nights speech, however, added new dimensions to the Obama presidency which defy comedy. Reminiscent of North Korean tactics to intimidate, the audience reminded me of the underground (chinese?) terra cotta army. Cold, lifeless, unemotional.

And the announcement of sending 30,000 troops to Aphghanistan 3 weeks before Christmas? It reminded me of the cold detachment normally found in most US businesses. WTF! Honestly, WHAT THE FUCK, OBAMA SUCKS! Really, what a fuckin' asshole. --Extra Ordinary 04:55, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Since when did this turn from a place to discuss the Barack Obama article into a forum for political opinion? --Andorin Kato 05:03, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

August 2009 --Extra Ordinary 05:10, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Valid point, Andorin. To pull this back to the topic of humor, I think that neither the fact that the decision came 3 weeks before Christmas, nor the fact that Obama is a "fuckin' asshole," have comedy potential. Though we have pulled this article in different directions, it is so far not a rant. A better pit to mine is the fact that deciding took 100 days (with one 45-minute conversation with his field General as an afterthought on his way home from lobbying for the Olympics). Like selecting a house pet. Like picking a church. This super-cool President has a little trouble deciding. Another source of humor is the continuing vanity--most recently greeting the Prime Minister of India and telling him how appropriate it was that you get to play such a key role (first state visit) in my Presidency. Spıke Ѧ  14:25 3-Dec-09

New contributions

Concern about Barack Obama's Nervous Tick

As you can see in this photo, it appears that Barack Obama has a nervous tick which appears to occur only when he in in the presence of heads of state of foreign countries. A collapse in the muscles of the back which make it appear as if he is bowing to them. Three times at least - in Saudi Arabia, Japan, and China.

Someone ought to tell him to see a doctor - wife - Kenyan grandma - Joe Biden... (well maybe not him) .... somebody.

Since we have not had a tradition of bowing presidents, this looks odd, and Barack needs to address his health issue before it becomes more embarrassing than it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BidEd (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your suggestion; the middle photo has now been added to the article (at Section 5.1). Spıke Ѧ  12:45 17-Jan-10

BEST ****IN PAGE EVER!!!!!

I hate Barrack Obama and this definitly sums him up quite well.

Thank you, "Killer trainer 2" (born 20-Nov), for your comment. However, I am regretfully undoing your changes, as there is absolutely no connection to Britney Spears. Spıke Ѧ  20:49 7-Dec-09

stop mkaing fun of obama the best president in the whole world fuckin republicams

u pieves of shit!!!!!!!! How dare you guys try to make fun og obama!!! FUCK YOU DAMN REPUBLICANS!!!! obama is trying to help u guys n all u fucktards do is make fun of him. WTH!!!! i am going to change this page so it actually makes sense unlike u conserivatice republican i will make a difference and there will be change fuckin shitards that don't know shit about nothing becuase you al are fuckin douces little ding dongs!!!!!! liberal democrats >>>>>>> consercative republican LOL shit tars

Wth fuckers, i can't edit. its all you repblicans fault for 9 11 and why gays like me cant get marrried sshit tards. obama is gonna bring chage like it or not.

Contributed by 140.144.175.79. Moved from the top of the page by me. Guess we have now heard both sides. Spıke Ѧ  02:15 8-Dec-09

Yup. This is also why IPs are locked from editing (screwing up) the page. Maybe there should be a second page on Obama - one that frames him as the Black Messiah (kind of like how we have 2 articles on George Bush, one intended to idolize him, the other intended to demonize him.) -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 03:37, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

We do have multiple Obama articles. One anti-Obama article is at, of course, Barack Hussein Obama.

The double treatment of George W. Bush frustrates me. This libertarian views Bush as a moderate President, eminently impossible to hate as everyone now seems to--except that each of his initiatives bore results in the opposite direction (from getting the federal government out of the schools, to putting Medicare on a sounder footing), a man comfortable with lies ("immigration reform that avoids amnesty") but strung up on the one "lie" (Weapons of Mass Destruction) that everyone else in Washington also believed--thus becoming the second Bush to be ruined for doing exactly what the opposition asked him to. The point here is that this view could be much funnier than any joke told to advance either party's line. And citing Bush, you have to link to one party's viewpoint. Spıke Ѧ  11:05 8-Dec-09

New editing

I've edited the first half of Sec. 6, Personal Life. It had a couple consistency problems: It started out saying that Obama's whereabouts were a complete mystery but ended telling you how you could find them out with Google. And it referred to Obama aides in unusual ways; I've substituted terms such as "the White House Media Liaison."

Again, recourse to actual American current events is funnier than randomness. "The safety of the President" is language used in several recent laws, such as the Health Information Portability and Accessibility Act (HIPAA) (a Bush law), which implies that Obama can protect himself by browsing your prescriptions. Rather than an Orwellian corps designed to censor history and stamp out dissent, there is the willing cooperation of the television networks and the big-city newspapers, and current bills in Congress to further regulate broadcasters. Without claiming that these are stepping stones to tyranny, they are certainly adaptable to satire in that direction. And on the eve of tyranny, Americans would still not refer to a President using a title such as "Great Lord." We would probably still require him to take an oath to the Constitution, even.

I still have a problem with the last two paragraphs. There is good stuff here ridiculing the attention to Obama's lineage, but it's too petty for this stage of the article, where things are supposed to be ominous. The only sense of the gathering storm--the bit about buying up every copy of the biography--is almost an afterthought. I'd be happy deleting these two paragraphs. I'd be on surer ground moving them earlier in the article, but don't see where they fit. Spıke Ѧ  12:46 12-Dec-09

Gynecology

Extra Ordinary, I've reverted you again. There is a point about the health-care bill you may be getting at: that decisions about every procedure would be dictated by anonymous writers of a rulebook on reimbursability (call it a Death Panel or not). We know that mammograms (for women 40-49) are suddenly a No, and abortions are a Yes! Yes! Yes! with everything else T.B.D. However, the point of your expanded list item--that Obama seeks to wipe out gynecology because he thinks it's perverted--doesn't relate to anything in reality. And the prior text of the bullet neatly conjured up images of a rectal exam by the tax man. A separate problem with the entire thing is that, at this late point in the article, we are contemplating world dictatorship, not toying with the contents of a single bill, no matter how big it is in the current news. Spıke Ѧ  11:54 14-Dec-09

My impression of Uncyclopedia is that it's loosely based in reality. Why would Obama suddenly decide decades old procedures are no longer appropriate? My list attempted to expound upon more procedures and reasons previously overlooked which might explain not only why not, but how governmental digging results in ways to save itself money when it comes to medicare/medicaid and other welfare-care. So what if the reasons aren't based completely in reality. That's what Wikipedia is For!--Extra Ordinary 05:00, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

And another thing, you say at this "late point in the article". This is not an article! It is an encyclopedic entry. Real encyclopedias are assortments of various facts, not essays with beginnings and endings. They don't build to climactic conclusions. Could your adherence to non enyclopedic standards be the cause of this article holding steady at a lame 2.4? Your belief that this is supposed to mimic a NY Times article or Doctoral dissertation? Someone has lost site of the purpose of this sight. Humor and comedy. No wonder the ratings are in the crapper. --Extra Ordinary 05:59, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Our ratings are down? Funny, I am reading 100% more Uncyclopedia than just 6 months ago! (And I've never rated an article; otherwise, obviously, this one would have gotten a bump.)

This article's low ratings may be explained by the fact that it has gone through various stages, resulting in a visit by the "Colonizers." What I am adhering to is not "non encyclopedic standards" but their desire to start out encyclopedic and end in paranoia. I have brought my own change, that the paranoia might not be paranoia at all--that Obama is every bit as ridiculous as the right-wing "paranoids" the Colonizers set out to make fun of.

Regarding what is comedy, please look at Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid, Section 2. A joke based on "Obama thinks gynecology is perversion" is like the first (unfunny) example. A joke based on "Obama wants to improve health care using the IRS" is like the second--a perverse reading of the real thing. You need to read an analysis of an Obama proposal and think what would be a ridiculous extension or misunderstanding of it--not just come up with cool ways to put Obama down. Spıke Ѧ  12:54 15-Dec-09

Syanora

As usual, the beta males miss the point because they don't understand alpha humor. And I'm not about to explain how you missed the point because it's obvious it soared over your head like a dead door nail. Have fun reading the 2000 page health care reform package! (aka loopholes galore for fun and profit in the political arena!) You just don't get it and never will. Syanora sucker. --Extra Ordinary 05:03, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you think that any of my commentary means you think I favor Obama or his health-care plan--or that what I favor is important here. (Don't argue with me but with the office of your Congressman. Quickly.) "Syanora" usually means one is leaving, but three hours later, you injected a typical contribution of wacky randomness into a decent turn of phrase, breaking it. I will of course revert this, except that one of your random ideas--Kum-Ba-Yah--sums up everything and I'll move it to the intro. Spıke Ѧ  15:36 27-Dec-09

I don't think that what you favor is important here. Either you are self-appointed administrator of this page, or the colonization crew has given you control over the page. And the page is too rigid and needs a little "whackiness". If it were up to me I'd whack it and start over with something funny.

Also, syanora isn't a word. It sounded like "fuck off" in italian which is why I used it.

Someone needs to fight the blatant insipid vapidness of this page. After all, we're talking about the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The 2000 page health care bill needs to be laughed out of existence. If Uncyclopedia can't do it, no one can!--Extra Ordinary 07:55, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has appointed me administrator of this page. I believe they are sitting back and watching, secure in the knowledge that, for all my damage to their Grand Plan, I am at least doing the grunt-work of defending this page against "whackiness." The "insipid vapidness" is a style of humor you don't understand, but us Beta Males do.

Starting over with "something funny" is the best idea you've had. Unfortunately, the name Barack Obama is taken, as well as Barack Hussein Obama, but there are hundreds of others: How about B.Hussein Obama? Link to it in "See also" here, and use whatever style you like. Just make sure humor is Job One and advocacy is at most Job Two. Spıke Ѧ  12:44 28-Dec-09

Quotation from Lech Wałęsa

Moved here from various user talk pages

I've fixed typoes in your Walesa quote at the start of this article. Have also deleted the description as I believe Walesa is well-known throughout the world. Google doesn't say where he said this. Did he say it in Polish? If so, the translation of "Just let's" is wrong; you'd say, "Let's just". Spıke Ѧ  15:42 30-Dec-09

ofc he said it in Polish, he can't speak English ;). I tried to translate it from Wikiquotes in Polish. He has got many retarded quotes and he is really anti-grammar: like "I wants not, but I has to" :P. Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 16:00, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

[2] - Polish wikiquotes. cytaty=quotes. Maybe it will make you to learn Polish language:p This quote is exactly:

• Nic się nie zmieni. Róbmy swoje.
• Opis: o zwycięstwie Baracka Obamy
• Źródło: politbiuro.pl z 5 listopada 2008

• Nothing's gonna change. Let's just do our stuff.
• Description: about Barack Obama's election victory.
• Source: politbiuro.pl, 5 November 2008

Well, my mistake comes from the random word's order in Polish language :P So, Let's just do = róbmy, and "our stuff" = swoje.

But he would also say "Swoje róbmy" and it'd be the same :P Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 16:13, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

All is well now, with your correction in the article. Regarding "Polish word order," this calls to mind an illustration placed (for my benefit) in User talk:LisaKachold#What are you doing?--and that calls to mind a joke, circulated around 1995 via Xerox machine, about the "Polish handgun" (barrel pointed toward the operator). Regarding learning Polish, my strategy right now is to try to stay semi-capable with Spanish despite never using it any more.

People know Walesa from the Solidarnosc days, but they don't know about his anti-grammar side. Making fun of this is of course legitimate, but it can't be done in a one-line quotation in an article about Obama--bad word order would make fun of foreigners, not of Walesa--so the corrected version is better. Spıke Ѧ  16:32 30-Dec-09

Barack Obama and Lech Wałęsa appearing together in The Prince and The Pauper

Moved here from User talk:SPIKE

Please forgive me, but I kept your typo fixes in Barack Obama as you made them but readded the description of who Lech Wałęsa is--I would bet that well over 50% of Americans would not know who he is. I bet most Americans don't even know all their states. You may not be aware of the ignorance level in America, as I see you're from the nation of New Hampshire. Or is that a part of England? WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 19:15, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good; I would not for a moment dispute a citation of the ignorance level in America. I told Ptok that Americans remember Walesa from the Solidarnosc era, but perhaps half of our readers don't remember anything from that era. So you've been promoted?! Spıke Ѧ  19:18 1-Jan-10

Promoted? Nah. I was authorized to use the title Father as a member of the Church of Uncyclopedia based on my ranking as CUN; got permission to use Rabbi for the same reason (and after asking RabbiTechno if he thought it was a problem--he didn't have a problem with it); and got permission to use Serjeant-at-Law from the Uncyclopedia Legal Department. The Serjeant title IRL was the highest order of counsel in England and Ireland, but was discontinued quite a while back. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 19:29, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

PS--You didn't catch all the typo fixes, for one rolling it back to "Barrack." I've given your edit a minor edit. Spıke Ѧ  19:22 1-Jan-10

You're right, of course. I was going to fix that but decided to post a note here first so my edits-in-progress wouldn't get reverted before I explained. Then I got so caught up in explaining I forgot I hadn't done that yet. D'oh! Thanks for keeping on your toes! WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 19:31, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Hi Five

Obama about the give the hi-five to de judge Johnny Boy Rob.

What do you guys think? It has no relation to the theme though. Change it as appropriate.--Jondel 09:52, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

In this article, "no relation to the theme" is a fatal flaw. (Would that it were true elsewhere.) ChiefjusticeDS delivered the verdict overnight. Spıke Ѧ  13:33 4-Jan-10

Ok (about the no relation flaw). uh uh I might indeed post it there are at the Chief justice DS art..--134.159.159.213 23:59, January 4, 2010 (UTC)--Jondel 00:01, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Racial heritage

With apologies in advance, I am stealing two paragraphs and moving them to another article. This kills two birds with one stone:

• I've complained that the last two paragraphs of "Personal life," which make fun of Obama's razzle-dazzle on his racial heritage, don't fit the gathering paranoia at this late stage of the article.
• Everyone else in the world has complained that my article on Barack Obama's birth is not long enough.

So here goes. Spıke Ѧ  12:53 17-Jan-10

New captions by "Christhi" mostly reverted

from various user talk pages Thank you for defending the article. Yes, "His Royal Highness" was a bit much. Even Osama was a little much, but we let it stand. Now, I rolled back the last three changes from "Christhi" today--They changed the caption of the final photo to more explicitly tell a joke that was obvious anyway. I did not roll back his first 5 edits of the day. They changed the caption of the illustration in Section 7. This too is stating it too explicitly, and perhaps putting into words an explicitly anti-Obama bias. What do you think? Spıke Ѧ  01:49 1-Feb-10

Well, the part about "ripping apart the Constitution" was a bit much. The rest of it seemed okay to me, though. —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 05:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(I then edited the caption in Section 7.) Spıke Ѧ  21:29 1-Feb-10

from VegasBob

Someone parks on top of this artical and reverts changes immidiatly. I dont think there is any point in trying to keep this artical going. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vegas Bob (talk • contribs)

A lot of people watch this article. Colin Heaney got to your change before I did. The reason I would have reverted it, if he had not, are that (1) you added a quotation, which we are trying to use sparingly; (2) your quotation constitutes overt advocacy which (either for or against) is not as subtle as what we are trying to do here--read further down on this page for details; and (3) your quote--the criticism of Obama, from the Mayor of Las Vegas, for Obama's statement that Vegas is essentially a place to squander money--would invite the infinity other quotes critical of Obama, followed by the infinity of quotes in his defense. We're not going there. Cheers to you for defending a great American city. But not this way. Spıke Ѧ 22:00 8-Mar-10

What won't evoke something on this page? Isn't that the point? If that is the direction (or lack of) the moderators want to go in, who am I to agrue? But this wasnt even made up and to have an actuall sitting mayor of a major city make that comment on the record seems the stuff Uncyclopedia is made of. VegasBob

---

...I have to agree with the guy who started this thread. This artical seems a little... Bland. Compaired to the assault on Dubya (Not taking a particular side). Maybe a second "active" obama page is needed since this one isn't changing any time soon.--VegasBob 01:04, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

You are not going to reach anyone adding to long-ago-closed threads, so I'm moving your new stuff here at the end. The page has changed quite a lot in the last six months, and after a lot of debate, set out above. Again: What happened is that Obama made a couple of stupid comments, was called out for it by the mayor of Las Vegas, and you wanted to insert the latter quote at the start of the article. Do you realize that this is a humor wiki? Your proposed change was serious, not funny, and was advocacy.

There are in fact two articles (at least!) on Bush, one sappily favorable and one scathing. I thought there were two on Obama but I see that Barack Hussein Obama was voted off the island during a four-hour period when I wasn't here. No one has a problem with you starting a second Obama article--but the purpose is to be funny. From all I can tell, your purpose is to build a case against him. I might agree, but you can't do it here. The "praise" of Obama on this page is mostly sarcasm. The "Colonizers" who did the last major rewrite set out to paint Obama's critics as conspiracy theorists and paint a slide into dictatorship as a product of his opponents' paranoia. Since I arrived, the ending is more ambiguous. Spıke Ѧ 01:25 9-Mar-10

Actually we have an article on Baraq Hussein Osama and Barack Osama. Nobody knows anywhere near everything that goes on around here, so some really bad articles survive while some less bad articles get deleted. --Mn-z 02:05, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hey Spike, I'm not pushing an agenda of any kind here. I simply enjoy the site and am trying do my little part. Reading thru many of the posts just on this talk page makes it essential for a grown up or two to stay on top of it (I've never seen the word "F*@ktard used so many times in so many unpunctionated paragraphs.) And I'm not so vien as to think my quote from Mayor Goodman made the artical. I guess I was taken back at the speed at which it was deleted. For the record, I think they all suck From Dick Cheney to Rahm Emanuel. From Rachel Maddow to Glen Beck. I just thought this was the forum let the dogs bite at all the cats. If you look at my handfull of contribs, I don't think they are brilliant but I think I've avoided calling peeple "Doodie Heads" if you catch my drift.

- - :: Not to worry, Wont keep me from working on the site... But it was a bit discouraging. --VegasBob 02:10, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. (Discouraging? You type a quip into the primary article on the current U.S. President and you think it will take a couple of days for people to see it and react?!) Cheers! Spıke Ѧ 02:14 9-Mar-10

Reflecting more on the quote, I can see where it doesn't seem funny out of context. If you look at Oscar Goodman, that's simply how Goodman talks. Guess I jumped from one page to the other with the context in my head and no way to convey it to the Obama page. --VegasBob 02:23, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Good job

I'm a supporter of the President myself, and I find this to be a very well-written article. It has a great mix of humor from both sides of the spectrum, and is just good reading. 128.109.2.110 17:04, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions

WaffleBoi has just added an odd, whimsical illustration of Obama riding a whale (Narwhal) (just uploaded, and not yet used anywhere else on Uncyclopedia). And the point is? Whimsical is not funny, and it is certainly not the analytical type of funny we've been working on here.

Before him, Monnitewars added another quotation to the start of the article, which is yet another vague, fictional person hurling an insult at Obama. I happen to think the pundit who called Obama a "mocha Jimmy Carter" was exactly right. However, we have (recently!) deleted another quotation on the basis that the fact that Obama has acquired witty opponents is neither remarkable nor funny.

I am inclined to revert both these edits. Comments? Spıke Ѧ 19:42 22-Mar-10

I'd say you're probably right about this, Spike. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:56, 23 March 2010

Colin Heaney dug in this morning and got the Narwhal; I just took out the quotation. Spıke Ѧ 13:13 24-Mar-10

Other recent additions that have been wisely reverted out:

• An hour's worth of randomness today by Rickyrab, most of it sideways but in one case spoiling a joke, was just reverted by Colin.
• Blahguy69 added as an initial quote a pretty generic piece of anti-Obama advocacy and Paizuri reverted him.
• Theheavyweaponsguy randomized the history of Obama's mother (with a nonsense year number) and I reverted him.

Kluft on 9-Apr added two illustrations that had slipped through the cracks. One, of Obama speaking and occluding an image of Mao, is kind of clever, although another illustration later in the article already melded Obama with Mao. The other, the 3D poster of Obama above the word "OPPRESSION," I am reverting now; it may be clever but it is indistinguishable from serious partisan advocacy. Spıke Ѧ 16:38 29-Apr-10

Striker2117's package of reverts today has removed the other illustration as well. Spıke Ѧ 11:01 11-May-10

Calamire adds two quotes which are clever but overtly anti-Obama. I've already reverted one of his contributions (on the timing of Obama's Nobel, which didn't help the joke) and have now advised him on his talk page of the history of this article and suggested that he read this page. Spıke Ѧ 23:25 18-May-10

Actually the persona was real I just didn't name him cause one I didn't have his permission to use his name, and two it was irrelevant. it was an actual comment on facebook. Also, I find it "convenient" that you took away a comment that republicans find funny.--Monnitewars 06:20, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

We have been consistent about performing "quoticide" on quotes that both Republicans and Democrats find "funny"--by which you mean "persuasive"--that is, attempts to start the article with overt advocacy from either side. Spıke Ѧ 14:48 10-Jun-10

On further review, an additional problem with this quote is its attribution to "a random facebook user." That the quote actually appeared on someone's Facebook page says next to nothing. Real encyclopedia articles don't start with such noise. Compare the surviving quote, a real quotation from Lech Wałęsa, who realized instantly after Americans voted for "hope and change" that it was business as usual. Spıke Ѧ 14:52 10-Jun-10

The White House

The first image on the page shows the CAPITAL building, NOT the w/h!!! 71.14.38.88 03:41, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. That appears to be deliberate. Click on "White House" for details. Spıke Ѧ 10:01 1-Apr-10

wtf

What is this boring unfunny pile of shit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.118.182.239 (talk • contribs)

I presume you are a Democrat and simply disagree with the content. But you forgot to accuse the authors of being mean-spirited, hating all black people, being puppets of Glenn Beck, and wanting to go back to the mean old days where "no one had health care." Dock yourself style points. Spıke Ѧ 13:16 6-May-10

Cementing of power

205.225.146.106 01:57, June 11, 2010 (UTC)Frank Lindahl

Instead of:

With the American people lulled into a sense of security,

Use:

With the American people having been lulled into a false sense of security,

blacked out to:

With the American people having a sense of security,

As is:

Obama passed the Enabling Act of 2010 through Congress.

Instead of:

Although this bill severely limits the authority of Congress,

Use:

Although this bill was initially resisted by Congress,

Instead of:

Obama forced its passage through the use of waterboarding.

Use:

Obama through waterboarding, not negotiations, brought the opposition to reconciliation in record time.

blacked out to:

Obama through negotiations, brought the opposition to reconciliation in record time.

Instead of:

After the drowning death of Mike Huckabee, the remaining holdouts fell in line quickly.

Use:

After the drowning death of Mark Souder was passed off as his resignation, all the remaining holdouts realized the wisdom of falling into line.

Blacked out to:

After the Mark Souder resignation, all the remaining holdouts realized the wisdom of falling into line.

The rest, as is.

Can we slip this into the article somewhere?

The funny things is, if he'd actually done this, we Brits would have supported him. ;) --Ozymandiaz 16:38, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I like it -Kluft 06:34, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

And he slipped it in, and Paizuri reverted it, with which I agree. It's someone else's humor, and it is advocacy. See above, over and over again. This page must not--no Uncyclopedia page ought to be--a repository of third-party artwork inserted to make the case for or against a politician. As we told you last time you tried it.

I am also reverting two other recent changes by TheEggyBaby: (1) Using the intro for the trite, off-color "Shi'ite" pun; and (2) inserting Leet and anal pleasure further down. Spıke Ѧ 13:21 5-Jul-10

I don't understand a word of that hilariously supercilious sounding comment however I have for the time being re-added the amusing if off-colour Shi'ite pun. I don't see the problem with the "Snob" poster but if it's going to upset people then leave it out. --Ozymandiaz 18:21, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I told you what I don't like about "Shi'ite." I'll tell you more: This article has a theme, from start to end--that Obama is cataclysmic (or is it just the paranoia of his adversaries?). And the intro's function is to set the stage for this, not to contain any pun that comes to your mind, a pun that you would not have inserted except that it essentially lets you say "shit" to the world. You did not rebut what I said. You name-called: I am "supercilious" ("characterized by haughty scorn"). It is reverted. I appeal to the Admins for the rectitude of my action. Spıke Ѧ 03:31 8-Jul-10

Last President of the United States

N00b types the following at the start of the file

If Obama does not die/resign/be impeached before December 21, 2012 and the doomsday prophecies come true, he will be the last president of the U.S. Either him or Biden (death/resignation/impeach exception)24.49.35.99 18:10, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Or, depending on what we find in the 2400-page Finance Industry Reform law signed today (when someone reads it0. Biden is performing the function of Vice Presidents since Dan Quayle and before, of making us hope nothing drastic happens to the Chief. We will continue to make sport of whomever is on top. In the meantime, let us use this page to debate what is funny, not what is the truth; and least of all wish ill to people. Spıke Ѧ 19:22 21-Jul-10

That's a Brazilian derriere, not a French one. Everything else is correct though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.124.190 (talk • contribs)

Okay. With more study, I'll get better at differentiating them. Spıke Ѧ 12:00 29-Aug-10

The girl's name is Mayara Tavares and she was 16 years old at the time, as it turns out. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:29, 29 August 2010

I guess Obama is the only dude who checks out girl's asses? Too funny... Great pic though! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Requiredloginname (talk • contribs)

Blacked out text

What's with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Requiredloginname (talk • contribs)

It was censored by Obamunists. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:22, 31 October 2010

That, or there was a giant oil leak. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:35, 31 October 2010

90s Kid21

We get the picture; user 90s Kid21 is enamored of the post-Colonization version of this article and needs it to be humped right at the top of the article. Socky had a sensible and preferable treatment of this, and I am reverting to it. Spıke Ѧ 23:24 6-Nov-10

Add this in!

Add this in: After his coronation inauguration, Obama firmly spread the word of hope and change to all walks of life, and to all peoples in all nations, so that we may prosper under his warming, glowing, warm glow, while he simultaneously ruled with a brutal iron fist.

or AT LEAST add in the coronation. i mean come on, you've just GOTTA have coronation in there.

Barack Obama as Messiah

I think there should be a section on Obama as the Messiah. It'd be totally awesome a) because so many homosexual and/or Mexican American liberal Democrats think he's like the second coming of Jesus and b) because there's a 90% chance he is the second coming of Jesus. --Thatblondguy 18:36, December 18, 2010 (UTC)thatblondguy

Sounds unsubtle. Rush Limbaugh since Obama's inauguration has referred to it as the "immaculation." Debating whether Obama is Christ or Satan has always touched hot buttons, and will continue to do so as we close in on 2012. Fortunately for comedy, Obama (like Bush) is starting to accumulate a portfolio of masterpieces where he got the exact opposite of what he set out to do, and everyone can laugh at those. Portraying someone as inept or a victim of bad luck is more sure-fire than making a claim about his essential godliness or evilness. Spıke Ѧ 18:44 18-Dec-10

He's like a Black Jesus/Messiah: bad outwardly in the view of good Conservtive white people, but has an inner goodness like burnt chickpea...--Sycamore (Talk) 21:29, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

A minor adjustment

I believe we should note that Barack Obama is our nation's 44th and final president. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mime Wizard (talk • contribs)

We've written down the date and, if it comes to pass, you'll get credit for the prediction. Spıke Ѧ 00:20 7-Jan-11

No, Sarah Palin is the 45th and final president, because she's a Lady...whoa whoa whoa, she's a Lady...in the white house. 71.102.26.168 18:53, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Worst president ever?

C'mon people, Barak Obama had an about 40% approval rating (before Osama Bin Laden was found hiding and was killed) April 2011. In comparison, the last pres. George W. Bush had a 15% approval rating when his second term ended (Jan. 2009). <_< Also I find it hilarious Bill Clinton's approval rating in his end of his second term was 65% back in Jan. 2001. LOL. xD What does it say to you? Obama is still president and we needed to see how his approval rating will be in his end of the first term.

You should not be here mortal your blood is ______ ! YOUR BLOOD IS MINE !

71.102.26.168 18:56, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I don't have a user ID here so cannot edit the article, But I think "Obama gestures Hypnotically" (Ala Mandrake the Magician) is a more appropriate tag line instead of "Now I am the Master!"

Actual Obama Controversies in Illinois

If you ever feel like mocking some actual controversies of Barack Obama, here you go.[3][4] --98.220.198.49 09:44, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Sure. -- This has been an automated message by Cute Zekrom (talk) 23:20, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Anon seems to be here more to discredit Obama than to crack wise, electoral shenanigans in the state of Illinois are very unremarkable (though that in itself is funny). On Anon's other link, Obama's pursuit of justice regarding newborns who unfortunately survive abortions did briefly become a national issue in 2008 but is pretty much off the screen now, even among his adversaries. In my opinion, there are bigger fish to fry. Spıke Ѧ 12:43 7-May-12

Voting against a bill that basically says "Don't treat aborted fetuses that survive the procedure as garbage (as long as they're still alive)." is questionable to say the least, though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:11, 7 May 2012

In my opinion, the bill said "Do treat them as garbage," as the ultimate goal was their disposal. Obama has never been an advocate for fetuses in any condition, but was briefly an advocate that no one be "punished with a baby." This invites gallows humor; however, in my opinion, there are still bigger comedy fish to fry. Spıke Ѧ 15:34 7-May-12

I think abortion is as much of a repulsive, vile and overtly unethical act as you do, but at least it was a move in the right direction (i.e. more sympathy for babies that cannot survive outside of the womb yet). —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:55, 7 May 2012

I say that if it has no chance of surviving, then don't bother trying to save it. -- This has been an automated message by Cute Zekrom (talk) 21:59, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

I always thought the following cartoon was pretty funny myself, from the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004, and preserved by Jill Stanek over the years:

http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/

And yes, electoral shenanigans in Illinois are pretty unremarkable. Chicago's done a very good job of rooting out honest politicians so they can't mess up the system. The Born Alive stuff was a major issue in the 2004 General Election, and in both the 2008 Primary and General Elections. It was brought up by all three Obama opponents in those elections, Alan Keyes, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain (not to mention Sarah Palin who also brought it up repeatedly). It's already shaping up to become an issue in 2012 too, possibly the major issue surrounding Obama.[5][6]

If this were the typical pro-life vs. pro-choice debate about abortion, Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about, but since what he was supporting was killing babies outside the womb, it makes it a more delicate issue for him. That he did so is so extreme that some people are actually disinclined to believe the claim until seeing the hard proof. That he personally led the Planned Parenthood Illinois campaign to prevent people from knowing about these votes, the figurehead for what was going on, makes it especially hard for his supporters to deny this controversy away.

At any rate, if there's a real controversy to address on Obama that has substantial backing, the Born Alive controversy is it. That he knocked off all 4 opponents in his first election on petition technicalities and struck a deal with the Illinois Senate leader to get credit for the major legislation worked on by everyone else in the Illinois Senate are also notable controversies, but haven't received the same level of coverage.

My only point was that the citizenship and religion controversies are easily discredited controversies nobody gives credence to, whereas these are likely to surface in 2012 as substantial problems for Obama. Obviously if a wiki mocks the real controversies of conservative politicians and not those of liberal politicians it won't look that great. -- Jzyehoshua 98.220.198.49 20:30, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua, do you know where you are? We don't care about indefensible politics; we care about funny. "Easily discredited" or not, I've had great fun toying with Barack Obama's birth. And don't dare us to be as tough on the left as on the right; it only proves you haven't read what we did to Al Gore and Global warming. If you can suppress your crusade to win over voters for Mitt Romney (his lack of anti-abortion credentials would make for good irony) and write an article good enough to make both righties and lefties laugh, register that name and get to work! Spıke Ѧ 21:08 8-May-12

I am choosing to abstain from political discussions and just want to have fun. Anyone with me? -- This has been an automated message by Cute Zekrom (talk) 21:23, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that. Anon, please consider getting an account before you start trying to do too much big stuff here, otherwise other people won't take you seriously. I learned that the hard way. Leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions at all. -- This has been an automated message by Cute Zekrom (talk) 22:08, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, no worries, thanks for talking it out at least. I just figured I'd drop by, came across one of your articles (I think it was about Creationwiki) and happened across the Obama one at one point, figured I'd mention it. What you do at Uncyclopedia is your business. And no, I'm not voting for Romney, fat chance. I've voted for 3rd party candidates for president both 2004 and 2008 and the chances that changes in 2012 look to be well south of 1%. Laughter's nice and all but I prefer truth and the wisdom brought by sorrow. I just tell people the stuff I know matters, what they do with the information is their business; I don't really care all that much. Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation - Jzyehoshua. --98.220.198.49 10:05, May 9, 2012 (UTC)