Talk:Barack Obama

IRS, AP phone tap, Benghazi

Mainstream media is now covering the IRS targeting of groups under the label "Tea Party," as well as the revisions made to the Benghazi talking points and the U.S. DOJ's tapping of AP phone records. They now appear to be treating these as scandals. Is there a reason why there is no mention of any of these scandals in the Obama article? I am assuming it's due to the fact that these events have not yet unfolded to their entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejanochica (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There are several reasons why these things are not covered in this article, but the main reason would be that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Barack Obama. The IRS and the Justice Department are independent branches of government, and only right wing fringe crazies think Benghazi is a "scandal". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You can't even see through your own bias. Is this a joke? "Only right wing fringe crazies think Benghazi is a "scandal." The president has "nothing to do with any of it" are you living in the twilight zone? Are you a real person? Do you have a brain? This is pure ignorance and propaganda. You as an editor should be nowhere near this article. You are disgusting. Benghazi - a stand down order while Obama and co where watching two navy seals defend an entire embassy from a large group of attackers. Obama and co denied support and maintained a stand down order for 8 hours. Do I need to cite the sky being blue? Also the IRS, Benghazi, Birther, etc there is tons left out. I also find it ironic how this article has the "Featured tag" while I quickly searched George W. Bush and even Albert Einstein all without such accords. You can't sit here and tell me these scandals do not exist. What happens when he is impeached, we will just leave that out as "right wing heresay." 68.50.119.13 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason I asked was because the scandals occurred under Obama's administration and are therefore related to him, and I was kind of wanting to see a comprehensive summary of all that happened. Wikipedia is usually good for that. I would also politely suggest that you refrain from name-calling; it's not really conducive to a nonpartisan atmosphere and it will only encourage suspicions that Wikipedia doesn't actually adhere to its NPOV policy that much. Tejanochica (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Scjessey, no one has shown this has anything to do with Obama. Do you have any evidence you would care to share that links this to Obama? Transcendence (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see this comment earlier. More or less what I said above. The events occurred under his administration, many officials from his administration were involved in them, and it would be nice to see a comprehensive summary of these events on a more reliable site than DailyKos or Breitbart. I am a bit unsure as to why one would think these events are unrelated to him; that would be like saying the response to Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War was Congress's fault rather than Bush's.

I figure that it would probably be a good idea to wait a few days until it blows over or someone in the House introduces an impeachment resolution.Ericl (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

find some reliable sources (note: glenn beck is not a reliable source) showing that obama actually organized any of this, and maybe there'll be a reason to include some of that. so far though, all smoke and no fire --and nothing connecting anything to potus. Cramyourspam (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Heres a Washington Post article reporting "everything comes from the top," regarding the IRS scandal. I am prepared for further logical fallacies. You are welcome. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not worth the time to follow the link, it does not report that. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could be surprised at the classic "find some reliable sources" statement from lunatic editors. Listen bud, you do not get to decide history, there are far more important encyclopedias who dominate Wikipedia and actually show the facts. You just play both sides and claim "whatever not reliable" etc. He is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Obviously he is implicit with any and all scandals. IT IS HIS GOVERNMENT. Whether he knew or did not know, he is in trouble for knowing and he is in trouble for not knowing and taking action. It is a lose lose regardless of the side you take. It is his responsibility to know and take action. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason there is 77+ archives. This presidency is riddled with controversy.68.50.119.13 (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing. And the so-called "controversy" is actually a GOP-created fauxtroversy designed to score political points. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Even the IRS scandal? Charlie Rangel, a New York Democrat, was ripping into the Acting IRS Commissioner. It is not only Republicans or Conservatives that are upset about this. SMP0328. (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(to the IP above) gee, just what 'far more important encyclopedias who dominate Wikipedia' are those? got a link? if they are so important and dominant, why waste your time trying to add right-wing spin to insignificant wikipedia? (to Ericl above) impeachment resolution? really? not only will that never happen, but also if it somehow did happen, the unfortunate resolution sponsor would go down in news-media-flames as the person trying to impeach the nation's first-ever black president. no one will *ever* seriously move to oust the president. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to get so worked up. And again, I'd like to ask that you refrain from using loaded terms like "right-wing spin." It's not very conducive to creating as nonpartisan an environment as possible. I was simply hoping to see a comprehensive NPOV summary of the scandals going on under Obama's administration. For example, on Reagan's page I have access to Iran-Contra, on Clinton's information about Whitewater and Travelgate, and on Bush's, the Dan Rather scandal, Hurricane Katrina, WMDs, and some about the faith-based initiatives. I'm not sure why it would be considered right-wing spin to simply discuss/summarize similar scandals that have occurred under Obama's administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejanochica (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no "scandal" at the IRS. Faced with an enormous increase in applications, a few people at the IRS tried to come up with a way to sort through those applications more efficiently. Unfortunately, their approach was flawed and resulted in right wing groups being targeted more than left wing groups. Steps were taken to resolve the issue, and that's all there is to it. But because of the lopsided nature of the IRS actions, we must now have the grandstanding, along with generous helpings of mock outrage, by politicians on both sides of the aisle. It's a dog and pony show that has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama or his administration. None of these "fauxtroversies" are directly linked to the Obama administration, so even if they did rise to the level of "scandal" they cannot be compared to Iran-Contra, WMDs, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

THere's no scandal? What? OK, Scjessey, I can see you making arguments against inclusion, such as recentism or dubious links to Obama himself, but to just declare that there is no scandal? What? You are not the arbiter of such things. It is being extremely widely reported as a scandal. You cannot just declare it otherwise. YOu do not control reality or reliable sourcing. See Wikipedia:Truth and its various linked essays. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Republicans are calling it a scandal, and certain political media outlets are repeating the Republican rhetoric, but it is clearly not a scandal by any stretch of the imagination. At best, it's a perversion of the word "scandal". Certainly there is no hint of any scandal connected with Barack Obama or his administration, and that is all that matters when it comes to this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think not mentioning these scandals is making this a biased article, when it should be neutral. These scandals are relevant to Obama, and should be included. Just like every other president with scandals have the incidents on their articles as well. Teresa44 (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

They are not relevant to Obama at all. That's a fantasy. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

While I agree 100% that both Benghazi and the IRS are right-wing manufactured "controversies". At least when it comes to having anything to do with Obama or his Administration. Anything linking Obama to some controversy regarding those two events is pure fantasy and not backed up by the facts or reliable sources. But the AP emails may be a different story. I believe the facts and the reliable sources(thus far) make it an administration policy connection. Whether it was right or wrong is up to others to decide. I think in the end, something about that particular issue will end up being in the Presidency article, and perhaps here too. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me just add that when I refer to the AP emails, I am talking about the policy, not a "scandal". The policy to aggressively pursue leaks, especially when they endanger military or overt CIA operations, is one that aggravates the left. And now much of the DC press are ....aggravated. Still, there is no real scandal there. As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein puts it, the accusations are falling apart. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Too early to tell but this could be a defining moment in something, even if we don't know that that something is. The press as usual is covering the presidency as a horse race, not as history or as an exercise in governance, and what they are saying is that the ball is in play, the Republicans are using these three incidents to try to stall the President's momentum and the President is fighting back. That alone could be a big deal but it's too early to know where this will go. None of these issues is on the top shelf of things that affect America but they could be part of a sea change, a moment when the parties switch polarity again with Democrats in favor of authority, law and order, military strength and intervention, etc., and Republicans backing isolationism, civil liberties, and so on. Could just be a blip. Others are reporting Benghazi as a preemptive strike against Hillary Clinton should she run for presidency. I'd check back in a week or two and if it's still going on, perhaps consider adding a mention that this phase of the presidency was mired in a political dispute, though wording that could be tricky. It would be interesting to see how the presidency of article, where this is more directly relevant, treats it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As usual, the media and (most of) Wikipedia is covering for him. - Billybob2002 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Second-term curse

It seems that Obama got the Second-term curse, the article doesn't tells what happend since obama started his Second-term in Presidency... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.150.34 (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That would go in Presidency of Barack Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Still, Obama has sworn into a second-term on January 20, 2013 and since then, additional information about the second-term is missing, like nothing was happend in the last 4 and half months... 77.127.150.34 (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That post reads as if you didn't read my previous one. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

it would still be a good idea to reedit and add some stuff from the second term.Ericl (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48. This may belong in Obama presidency article. The reference to a curse is regarding the second terms of recent presidencies, not the individuals in the office. In other words, the curse would be on Obama presidency, not on Obama personally. This article should refer to the second term to the same extent it does the first. SMP0328. (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Umbrella gate

"While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My suggestion for inclusion: In 2013 two Marines holded umbrellas above President Barack Obama and Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. But regulations prohibit Marines from using umbrellas while in uniform. (ref. http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/marines-holding-umbrellas-president-obama-asks-marines-to-hold-umbrellas-due-to-rain ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.197.255 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Is this a joke? Somebody pass me the biggest trout that ever existed so I can use it as a weapon, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Four presidents, four umbrellas, one outrage Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC) (Personal attack removed) I reopened this conversation because the actual event HAPPENED and was documented. Sorry but, responding with "is this a joke," is just not going to do it. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Lots of things are actual events that happen and many are well-documented, but that does not mean they rise to a level of notability suitable for their inclusion in the encyclopedia. And to suggest that this has some relevance to this biography, this article about a person's whole life and career, is patently absurd. I am again closing this up. There is no "gate" here, and no one serious about improving this article would suggest that there is. Please stop your disruptive commenting Tvoz/talk 02:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Obama smoked cannabis in college, and not just high school

Obama smoked cannabis beyond high school. Article indicates only high school: " At the 2008 Civil Forum on the Presidency, Obama expressed regret for his high-school drug use."

It should read something like: "... expressed regret for his high-school and college drug use."

Obama Recalls Getting Buzzed. By Steve Bloom. Apr 29, 2013. Steve Bloom is "Publisher of CelebStoner.com, co-author of Pot Culture and Reefer Movie Madness, and the former editor of High Times." Article quote:

Now that Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana, Pres. Obama is softening up about pot. He made light of his college use at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday night. "I remember when buzz feed was just something I did in college around 2 am," the toking president said in reference to the website as well as his own days as a collegiate choomer. "It's true."

There are probably references elsewhere in his autobiography, others' biographies of him, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like your right, though I don't think a minor pro-pot publication is a great source. The actual quotation he mentions does not directly admit to smoking pot, it's a joke and it is about things "one did", not him personally. I would check for other sources but it would harsh my mellow. The article already contains more than enough information on the subject but I'd support altering it to mention that he smoked pot in high school and college. The exact wording of your edit is incorrect though, because it's a statement about what he said at the 2008 dinner, not what he actually did in college or said in 2013. Also, the quote from 2013 hardly sounds regretful. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

We cannot use coverage of his speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner as a reliable source for him smoking pot in college. We have no idea whether or not he was joking. If we go ahead and use this source for that, we may as well change his birthplace to Krypton, per an earlier speech at the same event. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Aw, bummer. This might require work. :) Being the WikiSloth slacker that I am... I found the transcript for the reference in the article: Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum. Aired August 17, 2008. CNN.com - Transcripts. Emphasis added:

WARREN: OK, all right. Let's talk about personal life. The Bible says that integrity and love are the basis of leadership. This is a tough question. What would be, looking over your life -- everybody's got weaknesses. Nobody's perfect -- would be the greatest moral failure in your life? And what would be the greatest moral failure of America? OBAMA: Well, in my own life I'd break it up in stages. I had a difficult youth. My father wasn't in the house. I've written about this. You know, there were times where I experimented with drugs. I drank in my teenage years. And what I traced this to is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. And I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it's not about me. It's about --

That's the reference for "At the 2008 Civil Forum on the Presidency, Obama expressed regret for his high-school drug use."

The referenced discussion does not say "high school". So the article should be corrected to "Obama expressed regret for his drug use." That would be accurate. He does not say when he used drugs in that discussion. And even if extrapolating to teenage years (the drinking reference), that includes college. He was in college in Los Angeles from 1979 to 1981. He was born August 4, 1961. So he turned 20 on August 4, 1981.

See also: Dreams from My Father. The Wikipedia article says: "Upon finishing high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he enrolled at Occidental College, where he describes living a "party" lifestyle of drug and alcohol use." References are found there. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Dick obama

Exactly.