# President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

WTF!?!?!?!?!?!

what the fuck has he done to promote peace?





> By KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE
> The Associated Press
> Friday, October 9, 2009; 5:22 AM
> OSLO -- President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
> ...


as if they have ANY credibility left now


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize - White House- msnbc.com

Opinions?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize - White House- msnbc.com
> 
> Opinions?


i beat ya by 1 minute


----------



## ba1614 (Oct 9, 2009)

Congrats to him, that is indeed a great honor.

 Seems awful premature to me though, I guess they like America taking blame for everything.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

ba1614 said:


> Congrats to him, that is indeed a great honor.
> 
> Seems awful premature to me though, I guess they like America taking blame for everything.


re-read that quote
look for the *BOLD*


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

Seems to me travelling around the world..apologizing for the U.S.A. kicking the living shit out of terrorists...bowing to Saudi Kings and sucking up to the Eurotrash liberals is more akin to him winning the Appeaser of the Year Award.

"Oh thank you Nobel Prize Committee....thank you."


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize - White House- msnbc.com
> ...



you take it...I was looking at an old message board table of contents and didn't see yours


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 9, 2009)

Unfucking believable. We can now officially write that award off as absolutely MEANINGLESS. And we can assume the committee is full of idiots, retards and political hacks..


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unfucking believable. We can now officially write that award off as absolutely MEANINGLESS. And we can assume the committee is full of idiots, retards and political hacks..


yup
totally worthless
he gets inaugurated on jan 20th, and he had to be nominated by feb 1st


----------



## OldGlory (Oct 9, 2009)

Did I miss some breakthrough international peace initiative spearheaded by President Obama?

Are they giving these things away with My Coke Rewards points or something?

Does snubbing the Dalai Lama equate to an express pass on the path to peace?

Keep an eye on your respective mailboxes folks, obviously they're giving these things away like sample packs of laundry detergent.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

Obama: "Oh thank you...my approval rating dropped to 49% today.....I need all the help I can get from my fellow socialists!!!"


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Unfucking believable. We can now officially write that award off as absolutely MEANINGLESS. And we can assume the committee is full of idiots, retards and political hacks..
> ...



That's a lot of sucking up to do in 10 days....but then again...his approval rating dropped again...49%...he needs all the help he can get.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> what the fuck has he done to promote peace?
> 
> ...



Stimulus $$$s at work?  How much did this cost us - apart from the grovelling apology world tour. 

What a crock of complete and utter crap. It's so ridiculous that it is actually funny! WTF seems somewhat inadequate as a summary.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Obama: "Oh thank you...my approval rating dropped to 49% today.....I need all the help I can get from my fellow socialists!!!"


if they have to do that to prop him up NOW
what will they do in 2012


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


yeah, could put hoover out of business


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > Obama: "Oh thank you...my approval rating dropped to 49% today.....I need all the help I can get from my fellow socialists!!!"
> ...



Since our dollar is plunging faster than a China Airlines DC-10 they will probably put his mugshot on the worthless $1,000,000.00 bank note.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

The latest...Obama "curbed the spread of nuclear weapons"


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

As if they needed to prove the award was worthless, they turn around and give to a guy who as done NOTHING!


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

another reason just announced..."His outreach to the Muslim world...."

Unbelievable.


----------



## ba1614 (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > Congrats to him, that is indeed a great honor.
> ...



Fawk, I didn't notice that, must've been a good 2 weeks.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Arafat, jimmah and Barry, united yet again!


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Oh, and back off, he got it for having a beer with a policeman and a professor at teh white house!

Who else but Barry could have pulled it off??!


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Oh, and back off, he got it for having a beer with a policeman and a professor at teh white house!
> 
> Who else but Barry could have pulled it off??!


the nomination had to be submitted by feb 1st
what had he done in 10 days?


----------



## OldGlory (Oct 9, 2009)

Sitting U.S. presidents who have won the Nobel Peace Prize:

Theodore Roosevelt - (1906) Treaty of Portsmouth  - Negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese war

Woodrow Wilson - (1920) Founder of the League of Nation

Barack Obama - (2009) ?


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Barry blew gas out of ass and world peace began!

Hallalueh!


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 9, 2009)

Obama won for not being George Bush.
The Nobels have become increasingly meaningless.  Great writers like Robertson Davies and Jorge Luis Borges never got the literature prize, which went to non-entities instead.
Now this. Fooey.
And of course the fellow in my avatar, doubtless for discovering a way to spew crap from his mouth.


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

I'd have actually liked to discuss this but for it becoming yet another bashobamafestl *shrug*

At first, I thought I was reading something from The Onion. But now I just figure that he got the prize for NOT being George Bush.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> I'd have actually liked to discuss this but for it becoming yet another bashobamafestl *shrug*
> 
> At first, I thought I was reading something from The Onion. But now I just figure that he got the prize for NOT being George Bush.


ah, that's so impressive
hes not Bush


----------



## LilOlLady (Oct 9, 2009)

EAT YOUR DARK HEARTS OUT

Beck, Hannity, Dobbs, Malkin, O&#8217;Reilly and all of the other right wing-nuts and village idiots. Especially FOX-IDIOTS.
lol
Obama just won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize as the first setting president, since Woodrow Wilson, after 9 months in office.
lol
Michael Vicks doing a reality show and being paid. With a blond as his side?
lol
Seals on his 4th baby with Hiedi Klum in 4 years. Talk about a big bang
lol


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> EAT YOUR DARK HEARTS OUT
> 
> Obama just won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize as the first setting president, since Woodrow Wilson, after 9 months in office.


You are PROUD of this farce?

HA HA HA, a new level in Barryland worship, props for doing nothing!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 9, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> EAT YOUR DARK HEARTS OUT
> 
> Beck, Hannity, Dobbs, Malkin, OReilly and all of the other right wing-nuts and village idiots. Especially FOX-IDIOTS.
> lol
> ...



Look you political HACK, he got nominated on Feb 1st just 10 days after taking office. Now please go back and find for us anything he did in those 10 days that enhanced World Peace. For that matter find anything he did in his 9 months as President.

This proves the award is meaningless. Much as screaming racism every time someone disagrees with him. You guys are rapidly making many things totally meaningless and worthless. Not to mention the same with the US Dollar.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

too early.

next year would have been great, after the closing of guantanamo, removing the troops from iraq and winding down the afghanistan adventure.

yeah right.


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > I'd have actually liked to discuss this but for it becoming yet another bashobamafestl *shrug*
> ...



well...I said I thought I was reading The Onion at first.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> At first, I thought I was reading something from The Onion. But now I just figure that he got the prize for NOT being George Bush.



How about the other 7+ billion of us who aern't chimp, do we get it also?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> EAT YOUR DARK HEARTS OUT
> 
> Beck, Hannity, Dobbs, Malkin, O&#8217;Reilly and all of the other right wing-nuts and village idiots. Especially FOX-IDIOTS.
> lol
> ...


and the morons sink to a new low


----------



## brewerboy (Oct 9, 2009)

How retarded.

SOMEone made a pile of cash with that doozy of a decision.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


ah, ok
that makes it different
i didnt pick up on your sarcasm at first


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > At first, I thought I was reading something from The Onion. But now I just figure that he got the prize for NOT being George Bush.
> ...



heck, Arafat got one... why not? *shrug*


----------



## indianaboy (Oct 9, 2009)

Not surprising considering they gave the prize to a terrorist in 1994.


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 9, 2009)

He won this FOR WHAT???

I thought the prize as a joke after Arafat.... this just justifies that opinion


----------



## OldGlory (Oct 9, 2009)

I feel like if I was walking down Canal Street in New York I could pick up a Rolex for $40, a Prada handbag for $100 and a Nobel Peace Prize for $3.50.


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



My response when I realized it was legit was that I thought we're supposed to be rewarded for our accomplishments.... 

which is why I also said I'd have liked to discuss this but found another bashobamafest instead.


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 9, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> EAT YOUR DARK HEARTS OUT
> 
> Beck, Hannity, Dobbs, Malkin, OReilly and all of the other right wing-nuts and village idiots. Especially FOX-IDIOTS.
> lol
> ...




You are a goddamn retard.... but on the other hand congratulations are in order.. you made an exclusive list.... just see my signature for details


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 9, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Arafat, jimmah and Barry, united yet again!


 I *knew* Obama would be nominated and win, I'm just shocked that it happened so quickly.

I can only guess the Nobel Prize Commitee are just doing what they can to prop up his failing Presidency.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > Congrats to him, that is indeed a great honor.
> ...



So did he win it for the stuff he did in the first two weeks of his presidency?


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 9, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> too early.
> 
> next year would have been great, after the closing of guantanamo, removing the troops from iraq and winding down the afghanistan adventure.
> 
> yeah right.



It's also good this year for the reasons it was awarded to him:



> The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
> 
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
> 
> ...



I love the way cons attempt to minimize the importance of the Nobel.  If one of theirs ever won, I wonder what the chatter would become then..


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 9, 2009)

The Nobel committee has become a bunch of anti-American douchebags anyway so what more fitting way to recognize the * first sitting POTUS that is actually Anti-American* then to give him the award that sums up their common views.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and back off, he got it for having a beer with a policeman and a professor at teh white house!
> ...



He got a dog!!!!


----------



## midcan5 (Oct 9, 2009)

*More signs sanity is returning to world politics, may it stay - Bravo.*


Facts on the Nobel Peace Prizes

Nobelprize.org


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > too early.
> ...


yes, he did all that in just 10 days

then you wonder why people think you are a MORON


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


did he do that in the first 10 days?


----------



## Oddball (Oct 9, 2009)

> The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
> 
> Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
> ...


Looks like Axelrod wrote that nebulous, meaningless gobbldeygook.



Sarah G said:


> I love the way cons attempt to minimize the importance of the Nobel.  If one of theirs ever won, I wonder what the chatter would become then..


As far a I can tell, they've only scoffed at the ridiculous peace prize, as a political sop to some of the stooges who've brought about some of the _*least *_peace in the world.....This time around is no exception.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> > The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
> > The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
> >
> > Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
> ...


and if a conservative were to win it(like THAT Would ever happen), i would say its still worthless.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Finally a president the US has that the world respects.

DC - yes he was nominated two weeks after he was elected, however the choosing of the winner wasn't done until recently.


----------



## mal (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> what the fuck has he done to promote peace?
> 
> ...



And Look how he's Brought Unity to America!...

I Wonder if the Peaceful Nature of Chicago was Taken into Account?...

This Organization was a Joke a LONG time ago.



peace...


----------



## Oddball (Oct 9, 2009)

Yeah...The world just _*loves*_  an American president who plays footsie with the world's biggest thug dictators.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > too early.
> ...



That's a bogus hypothetical because even if there were a group I would call "one of mine" I think it's nearly impossible for a bunch of American bashers to award somebody that loves America. * I love it when Liberals give each other awards for being nice people even when they're the most unpleasant SOBs on Earth.*

But nice try.

I can't help wondering bout the timing of this. Obama suffers the biggest defeat in his presidency....a total humiliation....and BINGO....here comes the Nobel Peace Prize.

I wonder how much one of those fuckers costs.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 9, 2009)

Mad Scientist said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Arafat, jimmah and Barry, united yet again!
> ...



And you all have been declaring his presidency "failed" since January 30..  

Sorry, history will decide the successes and failures of Obama's presidency not a bunch of obstructionist cons.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 9, 2009)

Do you know what this means?
*
Chicago is a LOCK for the 2016 Olympics!*

You heard it here first!


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > too early.
> ...



personally i would have liked to see one of the chinese dissidents get the prize.

i understand the rationale of the committee, but i don't agree. let's see this guy obama deliver on his campaign promises first for a change.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > too early.
> ...



Do you know that this award isn't subjected to the same scrutiny as the other legitimate Nobel Awards?  This one is awarded by a bunch of elected politicians.....European socialist types...


----------



## California Girl (Oct 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> Yeah...The world just _*loves*_  an American president who plays footsie with the world's biggest thug dictators.



Apparently, considering the three other sitting Presidents who have had this 'honor' bestowed upon them....  Roosevelt, Wilson and Carter.  Or, as I like to call them "dumb, dumber and Who The Fuck Voted for This Asshole."


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 9, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> ...



Only to the losers every year.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

You just know they got it right when all the conservatives on this board are frothing at the mouth..

"Peace? What the fuck's peace. Let's just nuke the bastards!

heh, heh, heh...


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



As history will judge Bush's many successes...not a bunch of whiny ass libtards who are Code Pink anti war ass clowns.


----------



## midcan5 (Oct 9, 2009)

Bravo bravo bravo....


----------



## pete (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> what the fuck has he done to promote peace?
> 
> ...



WTF did he do to deserve to be elected ... the same here absolutely nothing.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...The world just _*loves*_  an American president who plays footsie with the world's biggest thug dictators.
> ...



Right about now, there's this retard in Midland Texas (who you probably voted for TWICE), going "Laura, what the fuck is a darn Nobel prize...and I'll have some grits with my morning brew while you're at it)...


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



ooh, scary. european socialist types. in norway, the best place to live.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 9, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Bye Bye!!!!


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> You just know they got it right when all the conservatives on this board are frothing at the mouth..
> 
> "Peace? What the fuck's peace. Let's just nuke the bastards!
> 
> heh, heh, heh...



 

They're gonna have their work cut out for them if they think smears will be enough to bring Obama down.  The guy isn't perfect but he is working hard.  Something we haven't seen since Clinton.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > PatekPhilippe said:
> ...



was it something i wrote?


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> You just know they got it right when all the conservatives on this board are frothing at the mouth..
> 
> "Peace? What the fuck's peace. Let's just nuke the bastards!
> 
> heh, heh, heh...



I think we might want to use an Obama Administration technic and rename the word *peace*. 

Let's call the award *The Nobel Appeasement Prize*: Awarded to the biggest suckup and apologist out there.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Finally a president the US has that the world respects.
> 
> DC - yes he was nominated two weeks after he was elected, however the choosing of the winner wasn't done until recently.


yeah, cause in those AMAZING 10 days he did SO much to deserve a Nobel PEACE prize


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


no, they have been giving it to LOSERS

MORON
your's should be in the mail next year
wait for it
you have done as much for "world peace" as Obama has


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Ha, ha, yeah he is one dumb hick mother fucker.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I think we might want to use an Obama Administration technic and rename the word *peace*.
> 
> Let's call the award *The Nobel Appeasement Prize*: Awarded to the biggest suckup and apologist out there.



Who's being appeased? Have the US troops been pulled out of Afghanistan/Iraq? Who exactly is he appeasing? Maybe he just not a "shoot first and ask questions later" kinda guy. Maybe gunboat diplomacy has gone the way of the Dodo....

At the end of the day, the US has a nuclear arsenal...'nuff said.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


keep proving me right for calling you a MORON


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Ain't it grand we agree on something.....


----------



## Toro (Oct 9, 2009)

What has he done exactly?

I can't figure it out.  

Must have been a real dearth of candidates this year.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > You just know they got it right when all the conservatives on this board are frothing at the mouth..
> ...



I wish he would work as hard to protect our troops as he does issuing Executive Orders preventing us from text messaging on federal installations, and chairing gang violence awareness conferences.

He's the Commander in Chief.....when is he gonna start doing his job????


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Toro said:


> What has he done exactly?
> 
> I can't figure it out.
> 
> Must have been a real dearth of candidates this year.


and what had he done in the first 10 days of his administration to even be worthy of nomination???


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Finally a president the US has that the world respects.
> ...



He wasn't Boosh! heh.....


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 9, 2009)

*?*


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

This is a joke thread, right?

Immie


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


so i can expect MY Nobel Prize in the mail  any day now, right?
i'm not Bush either


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> This is a joke thread, right?
> 
> Immie


only if the Washington Post and USA Today are both in on it


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2009)

I will believe Terrel and Eots before I believe that Obama did anything to deserve a Nobel prize for anything.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

There are a couple of things here;

1) I really don't think conservatives in America realise how much Bush is/was disliked
2) I really don't think conservatives in America realise how much out of step they are with the rest of the world.
3) I really don't think conservatives in America care about point 2
4) And number 3 is the problem..


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> There are a couple of things here;
> 
> 1) I really don't think conservatives in America realise how much Bush is/was disliked
> 2) I really don't think conservatives in America realise how much out of step they are with the rest of the world.
> ...


that's because i really don't give a shit what you think about conservative Americans


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 9, 2009)

NASA is bombing the moon.. How about that?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > This is a joke thread, right?
> ...



OMG!

It is not a joke... well, the prize is a joke nowadays.  That is BS.  The man has done nothing in his... well, wait... he did spend nearly a trillion dollars in his failed attempt to stimulate the US economy and wants to spend more.  He wants to spend nearly that much to eliminate private health insurance.  Maybe the Nobel Committee thinks that will have promoted world peace?

Give me an F'ing break! If they had nominated him next year or in the following years of his presidency it might not look like a scam, but this is ludicrous!

Immie


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I think we might want to use an Obama Administration technic and rename the word *peace*.
> ...



You have no idea how Liberals in Washington operate.

Just like in Vietnam, Somalia, everywhere we have had to withdraw in defeat.

They put our troops in harms way....leave their shit out there to dry.....refusing them the right to properly defend themselves because their ROEs are too restrictive and their numbers are insuffcient to do the job....and then a shitload get killed and we have to withdraw. It's a setup. 

Obama has no intention on winning. He just wants to be able to withdraw without it looking like he's at fault. He wants the uproar to withdraw to rise to a high enough level to justify it. That's why it's taking so long for him to make a decision all the while he's trying to push through Universal Health Care without letting us get a chance to read the bill.


This has nothing to do with his appeasment tour....I.E....pissing off our allies while sucking up to every tinhorn dictator in creation.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


especially when he was nominated before feb 1st of this year
a mere 10 days after he was inaugurated


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > There are a couple of things here;
> ...



I know, that is what I said (see points 3 and 4).

And the rest of the world thinks conservative Yanks are money hungry, war mongering, "we live in the best country in the world and you will LEARN to love us or else" ijits, who supposedly LOVE freedom as long as they get to decide who has it....

At the end of the day, even in the western world, the conservative American is in a small majority. One dimensionality does that I guess.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of you guys are bred from stock who threw off the yoke of imperialism, so that 'freedom' and 'personal responsibility' thang you guys have runs deep. But too often, you also show that you don't adhere to those principles yourselves...


----------



## California Girl (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> There are a couple of things here;
> 
> 1) I really don't think conservatives in America realise how much Bush is/was disliked
> 2) I really don't think conservatives in America realise how much out of step they are with the rest of the world.
> ...



I'll add a few, for balance:

1. I really don't  think liberals have any concept of what a great country they live in
2. I really don't think liberals have any concept of how envious other countries are of our country.
3. I really don't think liberals understand the priniciples of the Constitution 
4. I really don't think liberals care about the prinicples of the Constitution
5. I really don't think liberals think. 

And all of these are the problem.


----------



## mal (Oct 9, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Seems to me travelling around the world..apologizing for the U.S.A. kicking the living shit out of terrorists...bowing to Saudi Kings and sucking up to the Eurotrash liberals is more akin to him winning the Appeaser of the Year Award.
> 
> "Oh thank you Nobel Prize Committee....thank you."



Bow Down Before the One you Serve...



peace...


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> You have no idea how Liberals in Washington operate.
> 
> Just like in Vietnam, Somalia, everywhere we have had to withdraw in defeat.
> 
> ...



America has always sucked up to dictators. As have most countries. Noriega was yours before he wasn't, and the House of Saud still is. There is still that famous pic of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadman during the Raygun years.

That aside, with regard to ROEs etc, maybe not going in in the first place was the better option? But I was saying that back in 9-12 when anybody with half a brain knew Iraq was gonna take the hit for that shit....


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

OldGlory said:


> I feel like if I was walking down Canal Street in New York I could pick up a Rolex for $40, a Prada handbag for $100 and a Nobel Peace Prize for $3.50.



You are overpaying for the peace prize.

Immie


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > There are a couple of things here;
> ...



1) of course liberals have that concept, why do you think they fainted after the 2000 election and went absolutely batshit in 2004?
2) I think that is actually a conservative problem. I am not envious of your country, and I don't know many people who are. Is it a great place? Sure. But envious? hhhmmm...
3) I think the liberals do care about the constitution, but I think both parties to liberties with it


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > too early.
> ...



The problem is, Sarah, that he had not done any of that stuff when he was nominated.  You don't get nominated for a prize for something you are going to do in the future.  This is a crock of shit.

Had he been nominated next year, I might not agree with the decision of the committee, but I could see their point of view.  The year after even more so once his work had begun to take affect.  But, by Feb 1, he had not done these things.

Hey, I'm considering writing a book... Do you think I can get nominated for the Prize for Literature this year?

Immie


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > You have no idea how Liberals in Washington operate.
> ...



That's a bogus argument.

America has always had *common interests* with authoritarian governments that they befriend. 

In Obama's case he hooks up with the very people that have the biggest axe to grind with us. He sides with them rather then defending our interests. He actually thinks America needs to be knocked down a notch or two. Doing this is a dangerous game. In fact it's causing us to lose respect around the world and it's causing the value of the dollar to tank which will result in economic disaster in the long run. He's playing into our enemy's hands.

And what's worse....nobody fears us anymore....so now we're in serious trouble as far as terrorism is concerned.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 9, 2009)

Well, Obama and the Dems have inflicted more damage on the USA than anyone dared to dream, so yes, I can see where European Socialists would give a prize to Barry


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2009)

By GREGORY KATZ
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

LONDON -- The surprise choice of President Barack Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize drew praise from much of the world Friday even as many pointed out the youthful leader has not yet accomplished much on the world stage.

The new president was hailed for his willingness to reach out to the Islamic world, his commitment to curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons and his goal of bringing the Israelis and Palestinians into serious, fruitful negotiations.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize 1984, said Obama's award shows great things are expected from him in the coming years.

"In a way, it's an award coming near the beginning of the first term of office of a relatively young president that anticipates an even greater contribution towards making our world a safer place for all," he said. "It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope."

He said the prize is a "wonderful recognition of Obama's effort to reach out to the Arab world after years of hostility.

Another former Nobel winner, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.

"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity."

Still, some said the award came too soon, in light of the lack of tangible progress toward the vital goals of bringing peace to the Middle East, persuading Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions and improving relations with North Korea.

"The award is premature," said Eugene Rogan, director of the Middle East Center at Oxford University in England. "He hasn't done anything yet. But he's made clear from the start of his presidency his commitment to promote peace. No doubt the Nobel committee hopes the award will enhance his moral authority to advance the cause of peace while he's still president."

Reaction was far more muted in some Islamic countries. In Pakistan's central city of Multan, radical Islamic leader Hanif Jalandhri said he was neither happy nor surprised by Obama's award.

"But I do hope that Obama will make efforts to work for peace, and he will try to scrap the policies of (former U.S. President George) Bush who put the world peace in danger," said Jalandhri, the secretary general of a group that oversees 12,500 seminaries. "This prize has tripled Obama's responsibilities, and we can hope that he will try to prove through his actions that he deserved this honor."

----

Associated Press Writers Celean Jacobson in Johannesburg and Khalid Tanveer in Multan, Pakistan contributed to this story.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

hey, great things are expected of a lot of people, lets give them all a nobel prize before they actually accomplish them

and they will need to start making a shit load of gold medals for all the olympics, since a lot is expected of all the athletes that attend so they should ALL get gold medals


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> That's a bogus argument.
> 
> America has always had common interests with authoritarian government that they befriend.
> 
> In Obama's case he hooks up with the very people that have the biggest axe to grind with us. He sides with them rather then defending our interests. He actually thinks America needs to be knocked down a notch or two. Doing this is a dangerous game. The fact that it's causing us to lose respect around the world and it's causing the value of the dollar to tank which will result in economic disaster in the long run. He's playing into our enemy's hands.



So you think the people on the outside looking in see the 'common interests' angle as a legitimate one? 

You really have no idea how much respect the world lost for the US under Bush do you? It'll take ALL of Obama's term to get most of it back. 

Who has he hooked up with? How is he not defending your interests?

The value of the dollar going down will mean you pay off your debt quicker and maybe even increase export-related jobs.

America, IMO, starting going downhill when Bush was elected. I even hoped McCain would be elected because
1) I foresaw all the neocons bitching about how the Bush meltdown was really caused by Obama (have I been wrong)
2) Four years was not enough time for a Dem to fix the problem, so at least McCain would put his finger in the dike but probably getting voted out in 2012. Still feel that way.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> what the fuck has he done to promote peace?




LOL, have to wonder who did he bribe and how much it cost taxpayers.


----------



## Neser Boha (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> I'd have actually liked to discuss this but for it becoming yet another bashobamafestl *shrug*
> 
> At first, I thought I was reading something from The Onion. But now I just figure that he got the prize for NOT being George Bush.



My sentiments EXACTLY.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 9, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> By GREGORY KATZ
> ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
> 
> LONDON -- The surprise choice of President Barack Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize drew praise from much of the world Friday even as many pointed out the youthful leader has not yet accomplished much on the world stage.
> ...



*Olympics: Chicago 2016. Bet on it!*  How can they say no?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> I'd have actually liked to discuss this but for it becoming yet another bashobamafestl *shrug*
> 
> At first, I thought I was reading something from The Onion. But now I just figure that he got the prize for NOT being George Bush.



Yes, I thought it was from The Onion as well.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 9, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> EAT YOUR DARK HEARTS OUT
> 
> Beck, Hannity, Dobbs, Malkin, OReilly and all of the other right wing-nuts and village idiots. Especially FOX-IDIOTS.
> lol
> ...



How much time out of your day do you spend watching interracial porn?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2009)

The obstructionist cons' ditherings and drivelings above are exactly why BHO will be office for another seven years.  These folks are downright goofy sounding, and no one is taking them seriously.  The can cry and pout and stomp their little ugly feet, but who cares?  Go stand in the corner for a time out, little ones, then come back and see if you can act politely in public.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 9, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...The world just _*loves*_  an American president who plays footsie with the world's biggest thug dictators.
> ...



I don't think Carter was a sitting president when he won the Nobel. But I could be mistaken.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

This is even harder to believe than arafat getting it even obama cant believe it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 9, 2009)

President Obama with a Nobel. Sweet. Now to get the Health Care bill passed. Then Cap and Trade, as a beginning in both cases. 

Poor Conservatives. Total incompetance rewarded, your people were voted out big time in the last election, and the two fellows you people love to hate, Gore and Obama, have a Nobel each, and are exemplery successes. Gotta love it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

"EMBARRASSING JOKE"

Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad, said: "He doesn't deserve this prize. All these problems -- Iraq, Afghanistan -- have not been solved...The man of 'change' hasn't changed anything yet.


----------



## KMAN (Oct 9, 2009)

I want to get rid of nuclear weapons too...Why wasn't I considered for the prize....  This just confirms what a joke this prize has become...  Giving it to a guy for wishing the world would reduce it's nuclear weapons....WOW


----------



## KMAN (Oct 9, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The obstructionist cons' ditherings and drivelings above are exactly why BHO will be office for another seven years.  These folks are downright goofy sounding, and no one is taking them seriously.  The can cry and pout and stomp their little ugly feet, but who cares?  Go stand in the corner for a time out, little ones, then come back and see if you can act politely in public.




Great post.... Too bad you can't back it up with any proof...  other than that it was a good one....


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2009)

Hell---give it to Miss America contestants. They all hope for world peace too.


----------



## ba1614 (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> There are a couple of things here;
> 
> 1) I really don't think conservatives in America realise how much Bush is/was disliked
> 2) I really don't think conservatives in America realise how much out of step they are with the rest of the world.
> ...



It's interesting that most European countries, even Canada, having gone through their Liberal experiments realize that you really do run out of other peoples money eventually, and are going back to supporting their Conservative parties.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> "EMBARRASSING JOKE"
> 
> Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad, said: "He doesn't deserve this prize. All these problems -- Iraq, Afghanistan -- have not been solved...The man of 'change' hasn't changed anything yet.



What is embarrassing about it? Bush had seven years, you expect it to be fixed in nine months?? 

That's what happens when you go after sound bite journalism...


----------



## Ravi (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> I'd have actually liked to discuss this but for it becoming yet another bashobamafestl *shrug*
> 
> At first, I thought I was reading something from The Onion. But now I just figure that he got the prize for NOT being George Bush.


 My thoughts, exactly. Probably more that the world is kicking Georgie in the face by doing this...it does tend to put to rest the right's notion that the world hates Obama, though.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 9, 2009)

Would someone please tell me...... WHAT THE FUCK DID OBAMA DO TO DESERVE A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE??????


I know this question has been asked, but it has never been answered. I thought for sure some leftwing idiot would at least try to make something up. That's what they usually do... I take that back... they usually blame Bush... perhaps this is Bush' fault also.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

ba1614 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > There are a couple of things here;
> ...



Yeah, but even the most conservative European political party is still considered Liberal by US standards....(except the Brit Conservatives under Maggie Thatcher, who made Raygun look like a socialist poster boy)....

In all seriousness though, who are the conservative govts in Europe, and which countries have run out of money? Other than Iceland??


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > I'd have actually liked to discuss this but for it becoming yet another bashobamafestl *shrug*
> ...



uh Ravi-----the Peace Prize isn't something that the world votes on---just an FYI


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



hey, just like the decision where to host the next olympic games.


----------



## mal (Oct 9, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Why Confuse the Emotional with Trivial things like Facts... 



peace...


----------



## California Girl (Oct 9, 2009)

Since I'm a writer, I feel it is only logical that I will write a great novel one day. Ergo, I deserve the Nobel Prize for Literature now.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > I'd have actually liked to discuss this but for it becoming yet another bashobamafestl *shrug*
> ...



That is probably the first legitimate reason I have seen for him being awarded the prize this year.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Since I'm a writer, I feel it is only logical that I will write a great novel one day. Ergo, I deserve the Nobel Prize for Literature now.



I put my bid in about 20 minutes before you.  You have to wait until the following year.

Immie


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Since I'm a writer, I feel it is only logical that I will write a great novel one day. Ergo, I deserve the Nobel Prize for Literature now.



Ditto, and it's in the post...


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



THE WORLD ?  Cmon Immie--you can't believe the Nobel prize committee is anyway representative of the will of the world.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > "EMBARRASSING JOKE"
> ...


He was nominated  back in February .Days after taking office
All he had done , has done ,and will do is talk and fuck up Americas  economy and freedom.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 9, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> President Obama with a Nobel. Sweet. Now to get the Health Care bill passed. Then Cap and Trade, as a beginning in both cases.
> 
> Poor Conservatives. Total incompetance rewarded, your people were voted out big time in the last election, and the two fellows you people love to hate, Gore and Obama, have a Nobel each, and are exemplery successes. Gotta love it.



Uh huh.  Good observations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



With the privatization of the banking sector, completed in 2000, Icelands banks used substantial wholesale funding to finance their entry into the local mortgage market and acquire foreign financial firms, mainly in Britain and ScandinaviaIn just five years, the banks went from being almost entirely domestic lenders to becoming major international financial intermediaries. In 2000, says Richard Portes, a professor of economics at London Business School, two-thirds of their financing came from domestic sources and one-third from abroad. More recentlyuntil the crisis hitthat ratio was reversed. But as wholesale funding markets seized up, Icelands banks started to collapse under a mountain of foreign debt. 

Iceland goes bankrupt - BusinessWeek

*Isn't privatization just wonderful? Shouldn't we do that with all government functions? *


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> He was nominated  back in February .Days after taking office
> All he had done , has done ,and will do is talk and fuck up Americas  economy and freedom.



The economy was well fucked before he came to power, as for freedom, in what ways? What has he introduced in way of legislation that has curtailed your freedoms?


----------



## Rozman (Oct 9, 2009)

I'm not surprised by this. Six months into his Presidency I heard someone on MSNBC of course call him the Greatest President we have ever had. All I've seen from this guy on the Foreign affairs side of things
is apologize for America and some will say weaken Europe by pulling the plan to place a  defense system to protect Poland and her neighbors.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> President Obama with a Nobel. Sweet. Now to get the Health Care bill passed. Then Cap and Trade, as a beginning in both cases.
> 
> Poor Conservatives. Total incompetance rewarded, your people were voted out big time in the last election, and the two fellows you people love to hate, Gore and Obama, have a Nobel each, and are exemplery successes. Gotta love it.


How fucking hard is it to get  the bill passed  Obama has the houser and senate ?
Its not like he is trying to put someone on the moon  he is just trying to screw people.


----------



## mal (Oct 9, 2009)

The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage. The plaudit appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for resorting to largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

---

It's even being Conceded that this is NOT about Barry...



A Token Prize...

They should just Created an Award for People they don't Like instead of Giving one to someone to Spite another.

Another "Achievement" Barry doesn't really have.

Like being Black.



peace...


----------



## theHawk (Oct 9, 2009)

Curious that he won the "Peace" prize since he is continuing virtually all Bush policies when it comes to the wars.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No, I don't but neither does Ravi.  She used the phrase, "the world" as a representation of the Peace Prize Committee.  Her use of "the world" was easily translated by me as meaning those who decided who would receive the prize.

Immie


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Oct 9, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Hell---give it to Miss America contestants. They all hope for world peace too.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > He was nominated  back in February .Days after taking office
> ...


He hasnt been able to pass any  bills yet.


----------



## wethepeople (Oct 9, 2009)

Most of the winners are commies and socialists,even peanut face carter won!!  Sounds like a wag the dog type thing.  His approval ratings  are  in the shithouse and he pays off the nobel prize commitee to give him the award.   They see what he's doing to this country and they like it!!!  Once a commie always a commie!!   Barry soetoro dunham hussein obama x       nobel prize winner hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahah hahahahhahahhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah  hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 9, 2009)

Conservative reaction to all things Obama: de-legitimize it as quickly as possible!  

Presidency?  Call for a birth certificate!  

Health care reform?  Call it "Socialism" and offer no viable alternatives.  

Nobel Prize?  Call it a sham and scream about more "Socialist" cabals!

Like a rabid dog, the Conservatives would rather piss on their beds than take a moment of retrospective thinking to determine why their failures are never rewarded.


----------



## xsited1 (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> what the fuck has he done to promote peace?
> 
> ...


----------



## California Girl (Oct 9, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



It's funny when someone who know absolutely fuck all about economics decides to write a post about it. I'm so glad I'm not you.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> Nobel Prize?  Call it a sham and scream about more "Socialist" cabals!
> 
> .


It jumped the shark when they gave it to Arafat the terrorist


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 9, 2009)

Yessireee......  This is fun. Ol' Limpbaugh is going to go orbitual, and the rest of the wingnut freaks will follow. My, my, the thought of anyone saying anything good about President Barak Hussein Obama. What is the world coming to? 

Sanity, maybe?


----------



## theHawk (Oct 9, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> Conservative reaction to all things Obama: de-legitimize it as quickly as possible!
> 
> Presidency?  Call for a birth certificate!
> 
> ...



I think its safe to say it was de-legitimized a long time ago.  When asshats like Yasser Arafat and Kofi Annan won it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 9, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Cali, that is written by Business Week, not me. I know, one of them thar pinko commie rags.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > He was nominated  back in February .Days after taking office
> ...


upon reflection he has screwed US over with his personal money printing machine  that is going to crush America with debt .

Its His debt he owns it, lock, stock ,and barrel .


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prizeThe award of this year&#8217;s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America&#8217;s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Er, he didn't write it. Businessweek's award winning chief economist writer did...there's even a link....


----------



## California Girl (Oct 9, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> NASA is bombing the moon.. How about that?



Osama is hiding on the moon?  

Fucking Obama - what a warmonger!


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Nobel Prize?  Call it a sham and scream about more "Socialist" cabals!
> ...


Let's see who else won the Nobel Peace Prize, shall we?

Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize

There are winners who are decidedly not "terrorists" here, aren't there?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



How's he going to crush America with Debt? Where's Toro when you need him!


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Ok, Im going with  just fucking die you idiot.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2009)

wethepeople said:


> Most of the winners are commies and socialists,even peanut face carter won!!  Sounds like a wag the dog type thing.  His approval ratings  are  in the shithouse and he pays off the nobel prize commitee to give him the award.   They see what he's doing to this country and they like it!!!  Once a commie always a commie!!   Barry soetoro dunham hussein obama x       nobel prize winner hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahah hahahahhahahhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah  hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha



http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/90836-nobel-prize-committee.html#post1595854


----------



## rdean (Oct 9, 2009)

I suspect that all three Nobel prizes awarded to Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Pres. Obama were as a direct rebuke to Boy George and the Republicans.  Kind of "here is your reward for not being 'dangerous and ignorant' them".

Republicans insist that the US is groveling when it apoligizes for leveling a country that never attacked us and putting in place an Iranian style government who put women in bags and kills off its Christian population and makes Islam the "national religion" and by constitution, says all legislation is based on Islam (see Article 2 and 3).  A country that let Bin Laden get an 7 year "head start" which led to attacks in Europe and all over the rest of the world.

I don't see how the Democrats can be too proud over this, except "they are NOT Republicans".  At the same time Republicans should be holding their heads in shame for what they did to the country and the world.  Their policies cost tens of thousands of lives and nearly brought the entire world to the brink of economic collapse.  Will they feel shame?  Never.  The have God on their side.  Ask them.  They can no more admit a mistake than Boy George.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 9, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> Conservative reaction to all things Obama: de-legitimize it as quickly as possible!
> 
> Presidency?  Call for a birth certificate!
> 
> ...



Seems to me the conservative reactions you describe or not out of line. Fact is Obama has not released his birth certificate not to be confused with a certificate of live birth. Health care reform as outlined by Obama is socialism. The Nobel Prize? You tell me what 
precisely has Obama done to earn one.  Oh and can you prove that rapid dogs would rather piss on their beds?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Well, there's that Commie Pinko Mother Theresa on the list, and that Darkie troublemaker Nelson Mandela - who was imprisoned for being a terrorist! So there ya go!


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Ok, Im going with  just fucking die you idiot.



IOW, you haven't a clue. Was just checking. Thanks for cluing me in!


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



and the others ?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


 Well there you go.An embarrassment to say the least.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> and the others ?



On a serious note? Only gave the list a cursory look, but Ararat is on there.....


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



OMG....I know Conservative Yanks don't do irony or sarcasm very well, but surely you ain't that dumb....

err, scratch that - I do believe you are!


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 9, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative reaction to all things Obama: de-legitimize it as quickly as possible!
> ...


The birthers are just as ridiculous as the 9/11 truthers.  Shots in the dark to hopefully show this man is not white enough or Christian enough or "like us" enough to legitimately hold the office of President of the United States.  

Health care reform as seen by the Conservatives is no reform at all.  It permits the insurance companies to further plunder our economy, because, in the Conservative 'logic', they deserve to make a profit, no matter how much that profit costs consumers.

And a diplomatic approach to world crisis as opposed to shoot first and look for WMDs later may just help America lead the world rather than threaten it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, Im going with  just fucking die you idiot.
> ...



No really 


Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


----------



## Oldandtired (Oct 9, 2009)

Gee...I wonder if he would have won if he heeded to his generals request for more troops in A-Stan....seeing as one of the reasons he won the prize was becuase of his speeches about "peace"....

Gee....I wonder if maybe the million dollar prize and the prestige with the prize has anything to do with him waiting weeks to make such a decision.

Gee...I wonder if there is any connection between the fact that he decided to have his meeting to make the decision AFTER the prize was awarded.....literally HOURS after the prize was awarded.

Gee...I wonder how many of our heros would still be alive today if he made the decision weeks ago as he should have....

Gee....hmmmmmm.....


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 9, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Gee...I wonder if hew would have won if he heeded to his generals request for more troops in A-Stan....seeing as pone of the reasons he won the prize was becuase of his speeches about "peace"....
> 
> Gee....I wonder if maybe the million dollar prize and the prestige with the prize has anything to do with him waiting weeks to make such a decision.
> 
> ...


Your boy started this war and fought it for seven years.  He failed as usual.

Obama inherited this crisis and now he's responsible for losing?  

Gee...I wonder if the word "accountability" is in the Conservative lexicon?


----------



## rdean (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Darkie?

Imprisioned for leading revolt against an illegal white government in, get this, Africa.

Darkie?  Does a reasonable person even say that anymore?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> No really ]



I'm no expert on economics. Clearly you aren't either...


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> Darkie?
> 
> Imprisioned for leading revolt against an illegal white government in, get this, Africa.
> 
> Darkie?  Does a reasonable person even say that anymore?



For chrissakes see post 167. Conservatives not getting it I understand, but your a lib for crying out loud!! 

Then again, I do live in a country that had this on the giggle box the other night..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-QIoLbvLT4]YouTube - Hey Hey Its Saturday Reunion - Harry Connick Jr black face jackson jive[/ame]

and people laughed....hhhhmmm


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I think we might want to use an Obama Administration technic and rename the word *peace*.
> ...


I'm done with you Next to Bozona you have to be the user least worthy of attention

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...rs-anti-free-speech-resolution-at-the-un.html


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> Gee...I wonder if the word "accountability" is in the Conservative lexicon?



I always thought 'personal responsibility' was a US conservative catch cry...except when it comes to Bush is seems...


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > He was nominated  back in February .Days after taking office
> ...



Don't confuse him with facts.


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



dunno where he is now, but he said on the other thread that the "printing money" was the only thing that could have been done to avoid the next great depression..... at least if I understood him correctly.

don't you love the lying revisionists who forget it's Bush's debt.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I'm done with you Next to Bozona you have to be the user least worthy of attention
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...rs-anti-free-speech-resolution-at-the-un.html



Shit, I really haven't had that much interaction with you since you've been here. If I'd known you were a bona fide, right-wing, neocon whackjob, I wouldn't have bothered. Thanks for the heads up. You are dismissed....


----------



## Care4all (Oct 9, 2009)

Of course, we KNOW this is not Obama's fault so HE can NOT be blamed for this appearing rushed decision to nominate him by the committee....I am certain some of you will find a way to blame obama for the committee's seemingly rushed choice.

Though I do believe the panel was only nominating people at the time, and months afterwards could have been used to make their decision on the winner and not just the first 10 days of Obama being in office.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)




----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



See my last to him. Fucking moron...


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



I just saw it.

And he is at that.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


Well that would make Toro an idiot as well if he want to reiterate  and hold that stance
fiat money hyperinflation - Google Search


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I'm done with you Next to Bozona you have to be the user least worthy of attention



Perhaps if you stop lying and engaging in revisionist history, you'll be worth of *his* attention.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Well that would make Toro an idiot as well if he want to reiterate  and hold that stance
> fiat money hyperinflation - Google Search



That MIGHT happen, it might not. You have jumped to a conclusion I never had....that is idiotic to say the least...


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 9, 2009)

Congratulations to our President...
It is great news for all Americans to have our international initiatives recognized.

Wait a minute??

Some people are irate that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize

Are they Taliban?      No
Are they Communists?     No
Are they AlQaeda?       No

They happen to be republicans who once again are rooting for America to fail


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Actually, Toro knows more about economics than anyone on this board. So that would make *you* the idiot.

Just sayin'.

Me? When I have real experts on a subject to get perspective from, I appreciate it.... 

but then again, that's why you're engaging in posturing and revisionist history. Try learning from people who actually know a subject area better than you do. It works wonders.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 9, 2009)

rightwinger said:


> Congratulations to our President...
> It is great news for all Americans to have our international initiatives recognized.
> 
> Wait a minute??
> ...



Whose "irate"?


----------



## del (Oct 9, 2009)

the nobel what?


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

I'm betting all the pros and cons have already been covered in detail in earlier posts, so I'll just say that I believe this decision irreparably tarnishes the image of the Nobel.

Never in the field of politics has so much been given for so little so quickly.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 9, 2009)

It is wonderful that "*OUR*" president has received this honor.

"*ALL*" American's should be extremely *"PROUD"*


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Nominated for Nobel price within two weeks in the Office... for what?

Well, he might win again, next year... I wouldn't be surprised at all.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> It is wonderful that "*OUR*" president has received this honor.
> 
> "*ALL*" American's should be extremely *"PROUD"*



But isn't it rather like someone being nominated for an MVP award when they take the first snap and winning it in the first quarter?


----------



## Gem (Oct 9, 2009)

Rightwinger Wrote:


> Congratulations to our President...
> It is great news for all Americans to have our international initiatives recognized.
> 
> Wait a minute??
> ...



I don't see anyone irate - except possibly you, who seem to be falling back on the saddest of political rhetoric "Republicans are rooting for America to fail" simply because many have questioned why the President of the United States was the best choice to win this award.  

What I do see are a lot of people questioning how a man who never did anything of great international significance prior to becoming President managed to receive a nomination for and then go on to win the Nobel Peace Prize for 14 days of work...in which he did nothing of international significance but talk.

Come on, RightWinger...please be honest.  Does a person deserve to be placed in the same category of "peace bringer" as Nelson Mandela, Doctors Without Borders, Jody Williams (who worked to ban and clear anti-personel land mines), etc. because he talked about wanting peace....for two weeks in which he talked about wanting the world to work together?  How many people have spoken about the need for peace and cooperation for far longer than two weeks?  How many of those people have received a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize for their words?

If you are able to be even the slightest bit intellectually honest you will see that Obama simply did not deserve this award.  It was given to him for other reasons, political reasons, and those reasons are really what we should be discussing.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting this country to fail (and only the lamest of partisan hacks would seriously suggest that it does), and everything to do with questioning why a global committee would award such an honor for so little an action...and questioning what they truly want in return.


----------



## del (Oct 9, 2009)

way to go!


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > I'm done with you Next to Bozona you have to be the user least worthy of attention
> ...



Please link to   these alleged lies and revisionist history


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Of course, we KNOW this is not Obama's fault so HE can NOT be blamed for this appearing rushed decision to nominate him by the committee....I am certain some of you will find a way to blame obama for the committee's seemingly rushed choice.
> 
> Though I do believe the panel was only nominating people at the time, and months afterwards could have been used to make their decision on the winner and not just the first 10 days of Obama being in office.



I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you.  A person does not get nominated for a prize before he or she has earned the right to win the prize.  The nomination and prize are to be awarded after the deed has been done.

I'm not saying that the President's effort should never be recognized, but they should not have been recognized before they were actually done.  IMHO.

And no, I do not blame President Obama for this.

Immie


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, we KNOW this is not Obama's fault so HE can NOT be blamed for this appearing rushed decision to nominate him by the committee....I am certain some of you will find a way to blame obama for the committee's seemingly rushed choice.
> ...



He gave a "hope" to American people, and rest of the world maybe saw some of that "hope". We fell for it, so did world.

Reminder... Yasser Arafat won it too.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> hey, great things are expected of a lot of people, lets give them all a nobel prize before they actually accomplish them
> 
> and they will need to start making a shit load of gold medals for all the olympics, since a lot is expected of all the athletes that attend so they should ALL get gold medals



Obama was nominated a mere two weeks after being sworn in.  Exactly what was his nomination based on -- what he promised he was going to do, what he might do?  This reminds me of Obama's speech about 'precrime prolonged detention'.  You might commit xx crime in the future so let's lock you up and throw away the key now.  I see no difference between Obama being given this 'prize' (he didn't win anything) and Obama's 'precrime' crap.   It's all bullshit.

Hmmm, my kid is a TV/Film major, she may make an Oscar winning film someday, I'm going to go give her a statue now cause you know, she might do something fabulous someday.


----------



## Maple (Oct 9, 2009)

This is just another confirmation of how WEAK this President is. The world and our enemy's just confirmed that with this election.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 9, 2009)

It's a lollipop for losing the Olympics.


----------



## Gem (Oct 9, 2009)

> Reminder... Yasser Arafat won it too.



So because the award has been given to horrible choices in the past...we should be happy that the poor choice today was "our guy?"


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Our guy?


----------



## Gem (Oct 9, 2009)

Sure, "our guy," he is OUR President...whereas Yasser Arafat is most decidedly NOT our president...hence, not "our guy."


----------



## Gem (Oct 9, 2009)

Oh...and just for an interesting comparison...Snopes.com disproves the "Bush was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001" by saying:



> Origins:   Despite a rumor that circulated late in 2001, President BushPresident Bush wasn't amongst the nominees for the 2001 prize (which was awarded to the United Nations and its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan): The deadline for Peace Prize nominations is February 1, and Bush wasn't sworn in as president until January 20. *For President Bush (or anyone else) to have produced accomplishments worthy of Nobel Prize recognition after a mere eleven days in office would have been a truly astounding feat indeed.*


snopes.com: George Bush Nobel Prize Nomination


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> what the fuck has he done to promote peace?
> 
> ...



What he has done has changed the conversation.  No one person can repair the damage done to international relations or the image of the United States caused by Bush&Co in less than a year.
Obama inherited the Detroit Lions (0-16); it's still pre season but he's installed a new 'O', a new 'D' and his special teams are first rate and his coaching staff are competent, smart, educated and willing to challenge conventional wisdom .  He may not win the Super Bowl in his first year or even his second, but given time, I'm betting he will.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 9, 2009)

Sorry, kids...I nominated him...it was a joke, a joke I tell you.

Boy, am I


----------



## Qball (Oct 9, 2009)

Um...OK? I know as a Republican I'm supposed to be losing my shit right now, but...I'm mostly just confused. Wasn't Obama just yesterday deciding if he was going to send 40,000 more troops into Afganistan? Is war a "peaceful" thing?

They awarded him the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Extraordinary efforts? Oh, you mean you taking his hope-and-change dog-and-pony-show overseas a few times, a failed attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago, and being Black? Wow. This must have been a slow year for Nobel Prize laureates, and the rest of the world must've really hated George Bush. He gave more money to fight AIDS in Africa than anybody ever has, and they wouldn't give him extra coffee foam. On the other hand, how serious can we take a prize that would grant it to Al Gore and Yasser Arafat?

Congrats, Mr. President. As with a lot of things, I don't blame you so much as I blame the people who can't seem to not go apeshit over you.

threads merged-del


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Gem said:


> > Reminder... Yasser Arafat won it too.
> 
> 
> 
> So because the award has been given to horrible choices in the past...we should be happy that the poor choice today was "our guy?"



You are the company that you keep...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> ...


As long as they cancel all further elections


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596012 said:
			
		

> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




That's sort of correct.  But he did not win it in isolation.  I notice detractors of Nobel Peace Prize Winners pull Arafat out at the drop of a hat *but it's usually out of context.*

The prize was awarded joinly to:
YASSER ARAFAT , Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority.
SHIMON PERES , Foreign Minister of Israel.
YITZHAK RABIN , Prime Minister of Israel.

for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East. 


It was awarded to 3 people working together who were able to forge a plan that might have worked had Rabin not been assassinated (by his own people no less).   They deserved the prize for that effort and it is that particular effort that was awarded the prize.


----------



## Dr.House (Oct 9, 2009)

del said:


> the nobel what?



What?  You haven't seen all that peace out there in the world?  The planet is just swimming in peace since the anointed one gained the throne...

Pretty soon there'll be no more wars and violence...

Mmmmm  Mmmmm  Mmmmm


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)




----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 9, 2009)

Love him or hate him; Obama is *"OUR"* president

He represents America and *"ALL" *of her people.

*"EVERYONE" *should be *"PROUD"* that the world honors *"OUR"* leader..

He represents *"ALL" *Americans

Only unpatriotic and anti-american people will denegrate this award for *"OUR"* president.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

I'd like to nominate my cat for a nobel peace prize seeing as he has done the same as barry to win the award!


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1596012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True...

Today, peace in the Middle East depends on Hezbolah, Hamas and Ahmadinejad. Should they be nominated too?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 9, 2009)

If he had any balls he'd turn it down.  Oh, wait . . . .


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)




----------



## Ravi (Oct 9, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Love him or hate him; Obama is *"OUR"* president
> 
> He represents America and *"ALL" *of her people.
> 
> ...


 We can't deny the partisan hacks their sour grapes fest.


----------



## SableRay (Oct 9, 2009)

This is a just absolutely amazing.   The committee is made up of some very smart thoughtful people.  *Congratulations *Mr. Barack Obama the 44th President of the United States of America.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

SableRay said:


> This is a just absolutely amazing.   The committee is made up of some very smart thoughtful people.  *Congratulations *Mr. Barack Obama the 44th President of the United States of America.


Funniest post in the thread.

I bet your leg was shaking as you typed it.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 9, 2009)

SableRay said:


> This is a just absolutely amazing.   The committee is made up of some very smart thoughtful people.  *Congratulations *Mr. Barack Obama the 44th President of the United States of America.



you mean of course the USof KKKA!


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Love him or hate him; Obama is *"OUR"* president
> ...


Only an imbecile would be 'proud' Obama won an award he has neither earned nor deserved, but do tell us more about 'hacks.'


----------



## theHawk (Oct 9, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Love him or hate him; Obama is *"OUR"* president
> 
> He represents America and *"ALL" *of her people.
> 
> ...



YES!  This is a victory for ALL AMERICA!

AMERICA RULES!  We just f*cking owned the rest of the world with this victory.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 9, 2009)

Better the POTUS stand before the world and call others nations "Evil" or invade and occupy another nation on a false pretext?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

SableRay said:


> This is a just absolutely amazing.   The committee is made up of some very smart thoughtful people.  *Congratulations *Mr. Barack Obama the 44th President of the United States of America.



Yeah just absolutely amazing.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 9, 2009)

Gem said:


> Sure, "our guy," he is OUR President...whereas Yasser Arafat is most decidedly NOT our president...hence, not "our guy."



no he isn't, he leads the USof KKKA


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

hmmmmmmmmm hmmm hmmmmm

Barack Hussein Obama

They gave him a prize 

for telling us lies

hmmmmmmmmm hmmm hmmmmm


----------



## Qball (Oct 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Love him or hate him; Obama is *"OUR"* president
> ...



It's not sour grapes to be a bit incredulous about the guy winning the Nobel Peace Prize after nine months. I mean, I know you guys like him and all, but geez.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596066 said:
			
		

> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1596012 said:
> ...



You completely missed the point didn't you?


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, we KNOW this is not Obama's fault so HE can NOT be blamed for this appearing rushed decision to nominate him by the committee....I am certain some of you will find a way to blame obama for the committee's seemingly rushed choice.
> ...



You think his name was put forward without his knowledge?


----------



## Rozman (Oct 9, 2009)

Like it or not he's involved in two wars,he hasn't closed Gitmo yet,Iran is on the brink of producing nukes, North Korea is doing some crazy crap still, the Mideast with Israel and Palestine is still unresolved.
White kids are getting beat on by blacks on buses,black kids in Chicago are getting killed by other black kids. Yes I can understand why the President was given this honor......huh?
What a joke.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

I was going to ask if anyone knew who else had been nominated, but evidently the nominees names are kept secret for 50 years.  With today's announcement it is easy to see why they don't tell us who else got nominations.

2009 Nobel Peace Prize â 205 Names Submitted: Nobel Prize Announcements in October | Suite101.com



> The Norwegian Nobel Institute was set up in 1904 to aid the Nobel Committee to vet candidates. While the institute keeps nominees names secret for 50 years, the process of submitting candidates often leads to the disclosure of potential winners.



Immie


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Better the POTUS stand before the world and call others nations "Evil" or invade and occupy another nation on a false pretext?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLhWg-8bafM]YouTube - Obama= WAR in Pakistan[/ame]He wont even back up his own contentions


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Back off!

He won the peace prize, he is GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Oh, and back off, he got it for having a beer with a policeman and a professor at teh white house!
> 
> *Who else but Barry could have pulled it off??!QUOTE]*
> Yasser Arafat, Jimmie Carter, Al Gore, U.N. Peace Keeping Forces


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Does it really matter whether or not he knew who submitted his name?

Maybe he submitted it?  Maybe Nancy Pelosi submitted it?  

I don't know who submitted, but regardless, I don't think he had anything to do with his selection.

Immie


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1596066 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



On the contrary, I'm right at it.


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

Anyone find out who it was that sponsored him?  You do need a sponsor to get nominated, along with some money, of course.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> Anyone find out who it was that sponsored him?  You do need a sponsor to get nominated, along with some money, of course.


God, Barry is his son don't you know.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Does it really matter whether or not he knew who submitted his name?
> 
> Maybe he submitted it?  Maybe Nancy Pelosi submitted it?
> 
> ...



It might matter if Obama knew if he was being considered.  As someone else pointed out, could that be the reason he has dragging his heels on the Afghanistan decision?  Surely they would not of awarded it to him if had decided in the last few weeks to send more troops as McChrystal asked.  That would make him a 'warmonger'.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

People usually win the Nobel price after they have done something.

What did Obama do to be even nominated?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, we KNOW this is not Obama's fault so HE can NOT be blamed for this appearing rushed decision to nominate him by the committee....I am certain some of you will find a way to blame obama for the committee's seemingly rushed choice.
> ...


good morning Immie...
Maybe they *thought* he had done enough in his first 10 days that looked promising to them?



> *In the first days of his presidency, his operatives say, Obama will hit the ground running.*
> 
> Number one: focus on the economy with meetings with his economic advisers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596158 said:
			
		

> People usually win the Nobel price after they have done something.
> 
> What did Obama do to be even nominated?


You dare question..

The one??!


----------



## California Girl (Oct 9, 2009)

So, he gets a few $$$s for this award, right? And since Public Servants are not supposed to accept gifts etc while in public office... does this mean he has to hand his prize over to his employers.... (as in "we, the people")?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

theHawk said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Does it really matter whether or not he knew who submitted his name?
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I agree.  If a person knows they are up for contention they can "play at peace" in order to win the prize.

Seems to me like that is a very good reason for winning the prize for things you *HAVE* done and not things you are expected to do in the future.

Immie


----------



## KGB (Oct 9, 2009)

now, that the Nobel Prize has been reduced to the status of a gold star on a 3rd grade spelling test, what would be the smart thing (politically) for Obama to do?

_Decline it._  Graciously state what an honor it is, but that more work needs to be done in order to meet the high standards of the Nobel committee.  This would raise his cache & it might even lead him to actually do something noteworthy of receiving the award in the first place.....


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 9, 2009)

KGB said:


> now, that the Nobel Prize has been reduced to the status of a gold star on a 3rd grade spelling test, what would be the smart thing (politically) for Obama to do?
> 
> _Decline it._  Graciously state what an honor it is, but that more work needs to be done in order to meet the high standards of the Nobel committee.  This would raise his cache & it might even lead him to actually do something noteworthy of receiving the award in the first place.....



I think you are wrong. I think this will definitely call for another million dollar tax payer funded night on the town with the other one who took 45 years to fine a reason to have pride in her country. Definitely worth celebrating.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Love him or hate him; Obama is *"OUR"* president
> ...





> Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had captured the worlds attention. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.
> Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize - Times Online





> The reality is that the prize appears to have been awarded to Barack Obama for what he is not. For not being George W Bush. Or rather being less like the last president. The question now is whether having being anointed perhaps too early by the committee, a Nobel prize earned so cheaply and at so little cost will help him in his efforts on the international stage or rather be an albatross around his neck. Something against which all his future efforts will be judged  and perhaps found wanting.
> Barack Obama's Nobel prize: why now? | World news | guardian.co.uk





> Obama likely understands that his challenges are too steep to resolve  much less honour  after just a few months. "It's not going to be easy," the president often says of the tasks ahead for the United States and the world.  The Nobel committee, it seems, had the audacity to hope that he'll eventually produce a record worthy of its prize.
> Analysis: He won, but for what? - Americas, World - The Independent





> The only possible explanation for the judges' decision to reward Mr Obama is that they are betting on his future achievements. They think he might secure an epoch-making settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians as well as a sweeping disarmament treaty with Russia. Having previously given the Nobel Peace Prize to leaders who have made real agreements to resolve real conflicts, the judges now appear to be rewarding effort and possible future accomplishment.
> Analysis: Barack Obama wins 2009 Nobel peace prize - Telegraph



Feeling among the major British newspapers appears to be one of, erm, surprise.  Even the left leaning Guardian has reservations.  

Of course, these can be easily dismissed as "partisan hacks".  Or if that doesn't work, foreign and therefore irrelevant.  Or envy, of course.

I'd be interested to see whether opinion is more favorable in other countries, irrelevant though world opinion is.


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 9, 2009)

OSLO &#8212; US President Barack Obama sensationally won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday just nine months into his term, prompting world leaders to urge him to use the accolade to step up efforts for global peace.

The jury hailed Obama's "extraordinary" efforts in international diplomacy and to hasten nuclear disarmament, but criticism surged quickly over how the award could be given so soon.

The US leader, 48, said he was "humbled" by the distinction.

*"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," *the Nobel jury said in making the stunning announcement.
AFP: &#39;Humbled&#39; Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

So offering hope and change and capturing the worlds attention is the reason for the prize? Then why not award  the prize to the Beatles, or perhaps,  Kim Jong as they are by definition offering the same.  Since when does a speech on nuclear  arms  control qualify  as  having an impact on nuclear  arms? I wonder if the committee has noticed the recent  issues with Iran and N. Korea or has that just  sort of skipped their minds.  No matter,  the Presidents own surprise about the reward sums up it all up and while one cannot argue that getting a  Nobel Prize is an honor, in this case  it is very premature to say the least.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Oct 9, 2009)

Doesn't it just *SUCK* when the majority in your own country as well a majority of the international community don't agree with your biases?????

These apoplectic whinings are the icing on the cake. What a GREAT day!


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I think it does matter.  He's a smart man.  He should know very well (or if not his PR people should have told him) that getting nominated for an award like this as soon as you take office is preposterous and will quite easily become a PR calamity.


----------



## Vel (Oct 9, 2009)

Maybe the Nobel committee thought Obama needed a pat on the head after getting kicked in the groin by the Olympic committee.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I don't think so, Care, and good morning.

He might deserve the prize in 2010 or 2011, but I just don't think he had done enough to have earned the prize by Feb 1, 2009.  It appears that this award was undeserved at the time he was nominated.  

Immie


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I agree.  At best, this has to be seen as premature.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Bush AIDS fight saved 1.1M, study says - and what he gets in return? Did he asked for anything?

Obama hands out false hope and promises, accomplishes basically nothing and he gets Nobel prize.

Next year Obama could be nominated for Nobel prize for economy... or mathematics, for paying $829 B health care bill and stay deficit neutral.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Doesn't it just *SUCK* when the majority in your own country as well a majority of the international community don't agree with your biases?????
> 
> These apoplectic whinings are the icing on the cake. What a GREAT day!


Doesn't it suck when people win awards for nothing?

Its fun to watch people like you cheer on a hollow and meaningless 'victory.'


----------



## namvet (Oct 9, 2009)

When Jimmie Carter won it that was a low. When Yassar Arafat won it, that was arguably a new low, and now for selling out his country, for apologizing to our enemies, for obstructing our interests, the Nobel Price Committee has hit rock bottom.

The Nobel committee's decision was motivated by Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

duh the nukes are still there

ease tensions with ragheads. didn't they attempt to kill him???? and he left murdered muslims behind.  alah be praised. 

and obviously he failed totally. what a fuckin joke. guess they couldn't find Bin Laden so Osama was number two on the list

is he going to get a prize for murdering our kids in Afghanistan to ????


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 9, 2009)

I find it interesting that people are seperating this issue  between democrats and republicans, here is a little  view from the left on his recent reward...

Though i love obama, though i very badly wanted obama to win the US election, though i think the first lady and Mr.President are all capable and qualified to be the president of USA,though i believe obama will definitely bring the change he proposed to bring...

I DONT THINK HE HAS DONE ENOUGH TO QUALIFY FOR NOBEL PEACE PRIZE....

PEACE???

Thousands are getting killed in Iraq AND IF NOT MORE THAN HUSSEIN ATLEAST AS EQUAL REASON FOR THE SAME IS AMERICA.

Thousands of innocents are getting killed in Afganistan... Not just by TALIBAN but also by Americas cross fire...

Majority of world arms trade happens because and through America. America is worlds largest exporter of ARMS...Inmany cases to both the waring countries...
Daily Kos: State of the Nation

Now while most try to  make this a right and left issue, it not a right and left issue, it is a simple issue of recognizing that this President  has not done anything to merit this prize yet.  In fact, I will go you one better and say that while not a supporter of  Jimmy Carter it would be hard to argue that his  work with H4H did not merit a prize.  I tend to agree though with one of the previous posters, that this might turn into a PR issue for this President  if he does not  eventually do something to merit this prize while in office and  perhaps as one other poster has suggested it has more to do with the selection jury being  happy that  George W. Bush is no longer in the White House.


----------



## editec (Oct 9, 2009)

The _PEACE_ PRIZE?!!

These guys are nuts.


----------



## paperview (Oct 9, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Perhaps.

We could be looking at a case of Norwegian premature acclamation. 


<it's OK honey, really. >


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't it just *SUCK* when the majority in your own country as well a majority of the international community don't agree with your biases?????
> ...



What's next?

Obama for an Emmy, Oscar, Teen Choice award etc. - being such a great liar... errr actor, he qualifies for every one of them.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596225 said:
			
		

> Bush AIDS fight saved 1.1M, study says - and what he gets in return? Did he asked for anything?
> 
> Obama hands out false hope and promises, accomplishes basically nothing and he gets Nobel prize.
> 
> Next year Obama could be nominated for Nobel prize for economy... or mathematics, for paying $829 B health care bill and stay deficit neutral.



Considering Bush started the two wars we're now embroiled in...the Nobel Peace Prize might not be appropriate.

Other than that - I don't think ANY of the recipients "asked" for it.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Obama wins dancing with the stars!

Why not, he didn't do that either.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596141 said:
			
		

> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1596066 said:
> ...




The Nobel Peace Price was awarded to three people working together to jointly craft a peace plan that came far closer to success than any other to date.  It was quite a monumental effort.  An effort that cost one of them his life at the hands of extremists on his own side.

Perhaps you can explain how Hezbolah, Hamas, and Ahmadinejad are crafting a joint peace plan for that region?  Some evidence of ongoing negotiations for peace would be handy.  Just to clarify, the definition of peace does not include lobbing rockets into another country or exploding oneself in a crowded market place.


----------



## paperview (Oct 9, 2009)

Cost of Nomination: 1 sheet Laid Linen stationary, 3.44 postage.

Award of Prize money: $1.94 million.

Head implosion  of the Right Wing: Priceless.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Barry wins NFL MVP!

You just can't stop him!


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 9, 2009)

paperview said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 9, 2009)

paperview said:


> Cost of Nomination: 1 sheet Laid Linen stationary, 3.44 postage.
> 
> Award of Prize money: $1.94 million.
> 
> Head implosion  of the Right Wing: Priceless.



price of trip to Oslow? Ten million.


----------



## Sinatra (Oct 9, 2009)

This will harm Obama far more than help. The collective reaction has been one of confusion and disbelief over this - only the far left is rejoicing.

The backlash is already underway - and the Obama White House knows it.  The president's speech this morning was very much along the lines of "sorry about this".

His team should have told him to refuse the award - that would have gained him far more prestige and respect than accepting it.  They miscalculated, and his already declining approval numbers will suffer even more...


----------



## Care4all (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



disagree with what?  I too think it was premature of this committee, and none of those things that *looked* promising, that they may have *thought* was promising, actually came in to fruition...  

we are still in iraq, we are still in Guantanamo and the two peace makers he hired have not brought even the promise of peace in the regions he hired them for....so i am as clueless as the rest at this point!  

I did the google search, because after reading the initial post, i thought, WHAT in the world were these guys thinking when they nominated him....did THEY know something that we didn't know or are they just picking nominees on promises of hope and change?

so I googled, Obama, first 10 days.....and i came up with that article.


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> This will harm Obama far more than help. The collective reaction has been one of confusion and disbelief over this - only the far left is rejoicing.
> 
> The backlash is already underway - and the Obama White House knows it.  The president's speech this morning was very much along the lines of "sorry about this".
> 
> His team should have told him to refuse the award - that would have gained him far more prestige and respect than accepting it.  They miscalculated, and his already declining approval numbers will suffer even more...


If he refused it I would gain a measure of respect for him.

But he's already made it clear he thinks he deserved it.


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 9, 2009)

I think the honor, and it is an honor, is more for what he has promised than for what he has done.

My problem with Obama, at this point, is he needs to get off his duff and do something with Afganistan.  The longer he waits, the more young people we are losing over there.  Kick the crap out of the Taliban abd Al Quida and get out of there.

As for the Nobel Peace Prize, we all should be honored.  But I am sure that is not the case and that the honor will somehow be used against him.  So be it...


----------



## namvet (Oct 9, 2009)

it was given to him based on race only


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 9, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I think the honor, and it is an honor,* is more for what he has promised than for what he has done*.
> 
> My problem with Obama, at this point, is he needs to get off his duff and do something with Afganistan.  The longer he waits, the more young people we are losing over there.  Kick the crap out of the Taliban abd Al Quida and get out of there.
> 
> As for the Nobel Peace Prize, we all should be honored.  But I am sure that is not the case and that the honor will somehow be used against him.  So be it...




So Nobel Peace Prizes are now given out for 'promises'?  What a fucking joke.

Talk is cheap, it's what you do that counts.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 9, 2009)

namvet said:


> it was given to him based on race only




Doh!  He accomplished being the first 'black' president of the U.S.  Could it be this simple?


----------



## del (Oct 9, 2009)

i promise to perfect cold fusion on my kitchen table.

do i get the prize in physics, now? 

i need to know so i can go shopping for my outfit.

thanks in advance

del
nobel laureate


----------



## Xenophon (Oct 9, 2009)

Barry wins Wheel of fortune!

What a guy!!


----------



## Sinatra (Oct 9, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> > it was given to him based on race only
> ...



Yes.

Obama is the classic noble savage syndrome...


----------



## Ravi (Oct 9, 2009)

Well, this is totally awesome. _He got it because he's black_. Republicans continue to dig their own graves.


----------



## del (Oct 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Well, this is totally awesome. _He got it because he's black_. Republicans continue to dig their own graves.



everybody knows he got it because he's kenyan.

silly ravi.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 9, 2009)

del said:


> i promise to perfect cold fusion on my kitchen table.
> 
> do i get the prize in physics, now?
> 
> ...



Here ya go del, you deserve it.







Peace Prize winners mantra:

I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am an attractive person. I am fun to be with.  I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like me!


----------



## California Girl (Oct 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Well, this is totally awesome. _He got it because he's black_. Republicans continue to dig their own graves.



They are indeed digging graves.... the future occupants have not yet been notified. Most are currently residing in DC.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 9, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I think the honor, and it is an honor, is more for what he has promised than for what he has done.
> 
> My problem with Obama, at this point, is he needs to get off his duff and do something with Afganistan.  The longer he waits, the more young people we are losing over there.  Kick the crap out of the Taliban abd Al Quida and get out of there.
> 
> As for the Nobel Peace Prize, we all should be honored.  But I am sure that is not the case and that the honor will somehow be used against him.  So be it...



Yes he has made lots of promises and just how man has he kept?

Did he keep this one?

"When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it," 

Or this one?

To "eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses." .

Or....

"[W]e need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." 

Yet more than 9,000 earmarks in the $410 billion omnibus bill total an estimated $7.7 billion. 

Or this promise.... "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." 

Tell me what promise had Obama actually kept?  I'm sure the list would be smaller than the promises not kept.

Fact is the man hasn't done anything that warrants a nobel peace prize.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1596225 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you saying Obama actually won Nobel Prize that was being dubbed the anti-Bush award - for the poufters in Sweden have again used it for their own political directives aimed at the USA. Considering that previous winners were: Gore, Carter, Amin...


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I think the honor, and it is an honor, is more for what he has promised than for what he has done.
> 
> My problem with Obama, at this point, is he needs to get off his duff and do something with Afganistan.  The longer he waits, the more young people we are losing over there.  Kick the crap out of the Taliban abd Al Quida and get out of there.
> 
> As for the Nobel Peace Prize, we all should be honored.  But I am sure that is not the case and that the honor will somehow be used against him.  So be it...



I think it was also given, in part, for the fact that he has done a lot towards turning world opinion towards the US around, into a framework more amiable to diplomacy and negotiation for one thing, and a hope that this will continue for another.

It's really a double edged sword for Obama because it raises the bar considerably for expectations now and none of the problems he is dealing with have quick and easy solutions.

When you see the right condemning him because he hasn't stopped the wars, fixed Iran or NK, or made peace in the Middle East it shows a similar lack of understanding (or deliberate unwillingness to recognize) that these problems are complex.

I'm not sure if he should or should not have gotten it, but to expect him to refuse it would have been a huge slap in the face for those giving it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> what the fuck has he done to promote peace?
> 
> ...



They gave a prize to Yassir Arafat.  They've had recipients try to give the suckers back.  They had no credibility to lose.  I don't think I've been alone in thinking for some years now that the Nobel Peace Prize is just a bunch of international leftists sitting around, yanking each other's cranks.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Cost of Nomination: 1 sheet Laid Linen stationary, 3.44 postage.
> ...



Yes, but the taxpayers will pay that ten million so it is not out of his pocket.

Immie


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596466 said:
			
		

> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1596225 said:
> ...



Nope.

Sounds like you're saying that "leftwingers" who win the award are undeserving.  Interesting that you feel it important to make partisan distinctions about award winners.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > This will harm Obama far more than help. The collective reaction has been one of confusion and disbelief over this - only the far left is rejoicing.
> ...



sure sure, whatever you say.

here



> ..     I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.  Let me be clear:  I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
> 
> To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace...


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

Care4all said:


> disagree with what?  I too think it was premature of this committee, and none of those things that *looked* promising, that they may have *thought* was promising, actually came in to fruition...
> 
> we are still in iraq, we are still in Guantanamo and the two peace makers he hired have not brought even the promise of peace in the regions he hired them for....so i am as clueless as the rest at this point!
> 
> ...



My apologies, I thought you were defending the decision to give him the award.

Immie


----------



## paperview (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596466 said:
			
		

> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1596225 said:
> ...


Mother Theresa....


----------



## paperview (Oct 9, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...


*ouch*


----------



## Si modo (Oct 9, 2009)

> ....
> 
> Chinese dissidents nominated include Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in a Chinese labour camp for encouraging reforms of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and democracy, environmental, and AIDS activist Hu Jia, who was sentenced to 3.5 years in jail last year for "subversive activities."
> 
> ...


Epoch Times - Chinese Dissidents Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

Or, 





> WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; Greg Mortenson, one of the world's great humanitarians, was today nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, in a bipartisan, bicameral effort led by Members of Congress. Mortenson, co-founder of the Central Asia Institute and Pennies for Peace, and co-author of the best selling non-fiction, Three Cups of Tea, continues to impress the global community with his unwavering dedication to advancing children's education and promoting peace in some of the world's most volatile regions. Bono Mack drafted the letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, nominating Mortenson for the prestigious award, and sought support from other Members of Congress.
> ....


California Chronicle | GREG MORTENSON NOMINATED FOR NOBEL PEACE PRIZE



> January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.
> January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an &#8220;open house&#8221; party at the White House.
> January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how&#8217;s that working out?)
> January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.
> ...


How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days - FOXNews.com   And he ran a slick campaign.



Compare.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



Nice quote 

Somehow, I think the knee-jerk emotional reactions of some on the right exceed their reading comprehension...


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

There is nothing better than the wailing and knashing of teeth on the right over this award.

FoxNews and their followers will be remembered in the future the way we remember George Wallace and Joseph McCarthy.

People who were on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 9, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> here
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He got that right.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> There is nothing better than the wailing and knashing of teeth on the right over this award.
> 
> FoxNews and their followers will be remembered in the future the way we remember George Wallace and Joseph McCarthy.
> 
> People who were on the wrong side of history.



...and Dan Rather


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1596141 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Arafat, Peres and Rabin worked together to craft a peace. Who initiated and sponsored those talks? Maybe that someone deserve his piece of pie too...

And Hezbolah, Hamas and their sponsor Ahmadinejad did not fire any rocket on Israel this year. Sooo, who did more for peace this year, Obama or them?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



It is a good quote and I am pleased to see that in writing.  I have not heard his speech yet.  I agree with him that he is not yet deserving of the honor.

I would be pleased to see him earn it in the future as that would mean that there is some progress in restoring America's reputation as a peace loving nation.  

Unfortunately, I simply believe the honor given to him was premature.

Immie


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

After a lot of research, I found that no one knows exactly who nominated Obama, and I doubt they will step forward.  Like Xenaphon stated, it could very well be an intervention from God.
There seems to be a lot of speculation on the blogs why he was chosen for the award.  Topping the list was to bolster his poll numbers to help get his far left agenda into policies.  Such as healthcare, and the Cap and Trade, and his leading this great nation down a path of stronger social issues.


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> After a lot of research, I found that no one knows exactly who nominated Obama, and I doubt they will step forward.  Like Xenaphon stated, it could very well be an intervention from God.
> There seems to be a lot of speculation on the blogs why he was chosen for the award.  Topping the list was to bolster his poll numbers to help get his far left agenda into policies.  Such as healthcare, and the Cap and Trade, and his leading this great nation down a path of stronger social issues.



Obama was chosen because he deserves it.

He has single handedly destroyed the mythology of islamic extremism.


----------



## paperview (Oct 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> After a lot of research, I found that no one knows exactly who nominated Obama, and I doubt they will step forward.  Like Xenaphon stated, it could very well be an intervention from God.
> There seems to be a lot of speculation on the blogs why he was chosen for the award.  Topping the list was to bolster his poll numbers to help get his far left agenda into policies.  Such as healthcare, and the Cap and Trade, and his leading this great nation down a path of stronger social issues.


*Record Peace Prize contenders this year*

* Barack Obama and Nicholas Sarkozy are among the 205 candidates up for the prize this year.*

28/02/2009


Oslo -- A record 205 candidates are in the running for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Institute said on Friday, with American President Barack Obama and France's Nicolas Sarkozy known to be on the list.

"We have received the names of 205 candidates, including 33 organisations," said Geir Lundestad, the head of the Nobel Institute. 

Lundestad said this was a new record, exceeding the 199 candidates competing for the prestigious prize in 2005.

The names of the nominees are kept secret by the institute for 50 years. But those who are entitled to nominate are allowed to reveal the name of the person or organisation they have proposed if they wish.

Both Obama and Sarkozy are already known to be on the list.

Being nominated says little about whether a person or organisation is actually likely to win the award, however, since nominations reflect only the views of those who propose the candidates and not those of the institute, according to Lundestad.

Thousands of people are eligible to submit nominations, including members of parliament and government worldwide, university professors, previous laureates and members of several international institutes.

The Nobel Committee that awards the prize is also eligible to nominate candidates.

The name of the winner will be announced in early October and the award will be presented at a formal ceremony held, as tradition dictates, on December 10.

Last year, former Finnish president and career diplomat Martti Ahtisaari won the prize.

AFP/Expatica
Record Peace Prize contenders this year < German news | Expatica Germany


----------



## Ringel05 (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > After a lot of research, I found ***t no one knows exactly who nominated Obama, and I doubt they will step forward.  Like Xenaphon stated, it could very well be an intervention from God.
> ...


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1596466 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why dont you tell me how they deserve it?


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > After a lot of research, I found ***t no one knows exactly who nominated Obama, and I doubt they will step forward.  Like Xenaphon stated, it could very well be an intervention from God.
> ...



Really? ***t is why he won the prize?  Glad you explained ***t bit of knowledge to myself, and all on this thread.  Appreciate it, Chris.


----------



## paperview (Oct 9, 2009)

*Qualified Nominators*

    The right  to submit proposals for the   Nobel Peace Prize shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:


               1.        Members of national       assemblies and governments of states;
 2.        Members of international       courts; 
                 3.        University rectors;       professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and       theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign       policy institutes;
 4.        Persons who have been       awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; 
                 5.        Board members of       organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace       Prize; 
                 6.        Active and former members       of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of       the Committee to be submitted no later th an at the first       meeting of the Committee after February 1) and 
                 7.        Former advisers appointed       by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.            The Nobel Peace Prize may also be awarded   to institutions and associations.


Qualified Nominators


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 9, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



And you actually believe him?!?

Did you believe him when he said this? "When there is a bill ***t ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it," or this, "I have done more to take on lobbyists ***n any other candidate in this race. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House." 

Can you honestly say you believe him?


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596551 said:
			
		

> Arafat, Peres and Rabin worked together to craft a peace. Who initiated and sponsored those talks? Maybe ***t someone deserve his piece of pie too...



Perhaps.  Perhaps not.



> And Hezbolah, Hamas and their sponsor Ahmadinejad did not fire any rocket on Israel this year. Sooo, who did more for peace this year, Obama or them?



Maybe you'd better check your facts first:
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596466 said:
			
		

> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1596225 said:
> ...



norway, americano, norway.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596583 said:
			
		

> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1596466 said:
> ...



Why?  I'm not interested in going through candidate by candidate.  I simply find it interesting that it is only leftwing figures you seem to oppose.

Global warming consequences could well affect world stability - raising awareness, as Gore did, was deserving.  In my opinion.  And that is all it is in the end - the opinions of you, me, the committee.

Carter, while I don't agree with everything he's done or said (for instance i don't agree with his bad mouthing other U.S. administrations) he has done a lot on his own dime as a private citizen to try to negotiate for peaceful solutions to problems.

Kofi Anin, I'm not sure.  I'll have to read up on why it was given because I don't recall.


But I do note that all three - Carter, Gore, Kofi are favorite bogeymen of the right.


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You are welcome.

From the unrest in Iran to the Pakistanis taking on the Taliban to Hezbollah losing the election in Lebanon, Obama has the extremists on the run. 

All without spending a dime.

Isn't diplomacy great?


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yeah, it's Obama, alright.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Prove these claims.


----------



## paperview (Oct 9, 2009)

Statement released by the DNC this morning:



> "The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," wrote DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse.
> 
> "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize -- an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride -- unless of course you are the Republican Party.
> 
> The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim."


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




fucking kool aid must be extra super duper cherry this morning.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Ame®icano;1596466 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True, I haven't think about that. All Nobel prizes except Peace prize are awarded in Stockholm, Sweden. My mistake.


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

paperview said:


> Statement released by the DNC this morning:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Paperview, this is the same polarizing politics that has been going on for the last 20 years.  Nothing is changing about, it just different players.  The same could have been said about the democrats the prior 8 years.  Exactly the same.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> And you all have been declaring his presidency "failed" since January 30..



That's the irony here.  Modern Conservatives are saying its too soon to give Obama an award, but its obviously not too soon to judge him a failure.  Never mind that Modern Conservatives have been begging people to let history decide on George W. Bush and not to call him a failure.

On a serious note:  When I heard about this I was surprised.  I think it has more to do with just how much damage Mr. Bush's unilateral policies did to American prestige worldwide.  Literally the next guy to come along wins the Nobel Prize, simply because he's giving the world hope that Mr. Bush's unilateralist policies are coming to an end.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> You are welcome.
> 
> From the unrest in Iran to the Pakistanis taking on the Taliban to Hezbollah losing the election in Lebanon, Obama has the extremists on the run.
> 
> ...



Aren't swooning groupies cute?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



i honestly don't give a fuck about your inquiry. i posted obama's statement because xenophon claimed he claimed he deserved it. keep your eye on the ball. thathathathathathathatha


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Hezbollah was ahead in the polls until Obama made his speech in Cairo. Then they lost.

The Pakistanis refused to take on the Taliban until Obama took office. Then the political climate changed, and it became possible politically possible for them to attack the Taliban.

Obama's peace overtures to Iran destroyed the Mullah's mythology of the war mongering America. The Mullahs then lost the election and were forced to steal it, thus destroying their claim to be the legitimate government of Iran.

Words can be more powerful than bombs, my friends. Something Bush-Cheney never understood.


----------



## namvet (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > After a lot of research, I found that no one knows exactly who nominated Obama, and I doubt they will step forward.  Like Xenaphon stated, it could very well be an intervention from God.
> ...



including the attempt on his life????


----------



## Care4all (Oct 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> After a lot of research, I found that no one knows exactly who nominated Obama, and I doubt they will step forward.  Like Xenaphon stated, it could very well be an intervention from God.
> There seems to be a lot of speculation on the blogs why he was chosen for the award.  Topping the list was to bolster his poll numbers to help get his far left agenda into policies.  Such as healthcare, and the Cap and Trade, and his leading this great nation down a path of stronger social issues.



now meister, you are extremely gullible to even give any merit to those accusations from the right wing that says Obama had this done to boost his poll numbers....  

Just take a step back and ask yourself, did Obama know 10 days in to his presidency that his approval numbers would not still be through the roof and as good as they were then come the following september, and had a load of people nominate him back then and conspire back then on what they saw in a crystal ball about his approval ratings dropping come september in the future year?   

I don't think, that conspiracy theory, even comes close with any kind of merit...and should be SHOT DOWN by fellow THINKING conservatives....imho, and immediately....otherwise they will continue to earn their reputation of being loony tune conspiracy nuts.

Care


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 9, 2009)

I think this is one of the funniest days of my life.  I was anxious to see what the GOP response would be to Obama being awarded this prize.  I have been laughing all morning at the "Party of No."

Rather than give Obama even a tiny bit of credit for his efforts for peace, they have, predictably, dismissed and criticized the decision.  FUNNY!

As was previously stated in this thread, the GOP will be remembered for its negative stance WITH EVERYTHING.  FOX, rather than give this news any air time is covering a car chase in Texas and singing the gloom and doom of Health Care reform.  FUNNY!

CNN should send a letter to FOX criticizing them for not covering the Nobel Peace Prize, just like FOX sent a letter to CNN about the tea baggers....FUNNY!

THANK YOU FOX FOR MAKING MY DAY!


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > And you all have been declaring his presidency "failed" since January 30..
> ...




I think you are right....


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I like Obama, but I do think this was too soon.  The only conclusion I can come to is that he won it based on what he was saying in his campaign... which was nearly a uniform rejection of Mr. Bush's policy of unilateral action.

In the end, I think it has more to do with the end of the Bush era than the dawn of the Obama era.


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I think this is one of the funniest days of my life.  I was anxious to see what the GOP response would be to Obama being awarded this prize.  I have been laughing all morning at the "Party of No."
> 
> Rather than give Obama even a tiny bit of credit for his efforts for peace, they have, predictably, dismissed and criticized the decision.  FUNNY!
> 
> ...



FoxNews will end up on the dust heap of history.


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is one of the funniest days of my life.  I was anxious to see what the GOP response would be to Obama being awarded this prize.  I have been laughing all morning at the "Party of No."
> ...



Right....  Then you have Contessa thanking your brillant post...sums it up for me.


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

The Obama effect....

A loss of popular support has ended many terrorist groups, and it is a plausible scenario for al Qaeda. Support can be compromised through miscalculation, especially in targeting, and popular backlash. The Real Irish Republican Army and India's Sikh separatists come to mind. Or a campaign can fail to convey a positive image or progress toward its goals, which amply applies to al Qaeda.

While the group continues to be dangerous, the faltering popularity of this campaign with most Muslims provides clear evidence of this dynamic underway. 

For instance, a Pew Global Attitudes Project poll released in September showed a remarkable drop in support for suicide bombing and Osama bin Laden in key Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and Jordan. In Pakistan, whereas some 41 percent approved of suicide terror attacks five years ago, that number has fallen to a mere 5 percent today.

Commentary: Al Qaeda's support is fading - CNN.com


----------



## MalibuMan (Oct 9, 2009)

This is a freaking joke!


----------



## Polk (Oct 9, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unfucking believable. We can now officially write that award off as absolutely MEANINGLESS. And we can assume the committee is full of idiots, retards and political hacks..



You guys have always considered it meaningless.


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

Polk said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Unfucking believable. We can now officially write that award off as absolutely MEANINGLESS. And we can assume the committee is full of idiots, retards and political hacks..
> ...



I woke up when Arafat ( a terrorist ) won the award.  I knew then that something was amiss with the "Nobel Peace Prize".


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



I too think that the prize was premature - not totally undeserving - but premature and said more about world attitudes towards the previous administration.  Unfortunately - I think it creates more problems for Obama than good.


----------



## Polk (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and back off, he got it for having a beer with a policeman and a professor at teh white house!
> ...



The list of people who can submit nominations is pretty long. In that light, it's not that shocking that someone nominated him.


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Obama effect....


Gun Sales Thriving In Uncertain Times - washingtonpost.com


----------



## Polk (Oct 9, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Obama won for not being George Bush.
> The Nobels have become increasingly meaningless.  Great writers like Robertson Davies and Jorge Luis Borges never got the literature prize, which went to non-entities instead.
> Now this. Fooey.
> And of course the fellow in my avatar, doubtless for discovering a way to spew crap from his mouth.



Damn those non-entities like Gabriel García Márquez and William Golding!


----------



## Polk (Oct 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



There are thousands of people able to submit nominations. It's not that surprizing that at least one of those persons nominated Obama. However, being nominated is not the same as being selected. So saying "What had he done in ten days" is a pretty hollow argument (even though I agree that he didn't deserve the prize).


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 9, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Obama: "Oh thank you...my approval rating dropped to 49% today.....I need all the help I can get from my fellow socialists!!!"



Norway is socialist?

Obviously dear leader has done fuck-all to earn this award.  Now the media is trying to tell us that we should shut up and be proud.  Of what?  He hasn't done anything but talk!


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Polk said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



It would be nice to know who gets the idea of nominating Obama after just ten days in the office.


----------



## Qball (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596158 said:
			
		

> People usually win the Nobel price after they have done something.
> 
> What did Obama do to be even nominated?



Not be George Bush.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 9, 2009)

Just found out.

My only question is...why? What has he done? I thought they gave out the award for actual accomplishments...not plans to accomplish something.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Qball said:


> Ame®icano;1596158 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True.

Based on that, you deserve nomination too...


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Arafat was a _former_ terrorist...but then so was 1978 winner, Menachim Begin who took part in the attack on the King David Hotel which killed 91 people, in the 1940's.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 9, 2009)

Qball said:


> Ame®icano;1596158 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If that is the real reason, then it cheapens the meaning of the award to where its value is next to nothing.

I could reluctantly accept Arafat. He actually did some things (although he helped to start the conflict in the first place....but thats for another thread). But Obama? Really? Maybe in 2-3 years when he has actually had a chance to do something...but only 9-1/2 months in? No way. Award is essentially bullshit.


----------



## Polk (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1596767 said:
			
		

> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You know, for how dumb it is, I can give you one even more bizarre. Some member of the Swedish parliament nominated Hitler in 1939.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 9, 2009)

Polk said:


> Ame®icano;1596767 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did Hitler win? Thats the only way that it would be dumber than this.


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Did Hitler win? Thats the only way that it would be dumber than this.



Really? Funny... I thought Arafat winning was way dumber than this.


----------



## Polk (Oct 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1596767 said:
> ...



I was making a point about the nomination process.

As for previous winner, you could make similar arguments against Hjalmar Branting's win in 1921. He had only been in office six months when he won.


----------



## Polk (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Did Hitler win? Thats the only way that it would be dumber than this.
> ...



For all of Arafat's faults, I think his win was more justified, considering the context in which it occurred. You've got to remember we can look at the Oslo Accords today through the lenses of what happened after. That wasn't the case in 1994.


----------



## rdean (Oct 9, 2009)

Republicans can't see this for what it is.  This is a stunning rebuke by the international community over what Bush and the Republicans did for the last eight years.  

If they had gone after Bin Laden and destroyed the leadership of a terrorist organization that perpetrated the largest attack against the United States in modern history, it might have been Bush receiving this award.  

Instead, after the Iraq debacle, the US was seen by many as an international threat equal to terrorists groups because we have bigger and better weapons and had no conscience about using them or invading a country we didn&#8217;t like.

The Republicans have adopted the Timothy McVeigh strategy of "let's bomb the world".  Instead of showing even the tiniest bit of reflection or introspection, they say, "Screw 'em".  They haven't learned a thing and have made it clear they won't.  So sad.


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

Polk said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



I'd disagree wholeheartedly.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1596767 said:
> ...



He didn't have chance to win, the same dude who nominated him withdrawn his nomination.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2009)

Yes, the international community just kicked the American neo-con community dead in its collective dead ass.  You folks have been rebuked permanently.


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

The Obama effect....

A loss of popular support has ended many terrorist groups, and it is a plausible scenario for al Qaeda. Support can be compromised through miscalculation, especially in targeting, and popular backlash. The Real Irish Republican Army and India's Sikh separatists come to mind. Or a campaign can fail to convey a positive image or progress toward its goals, which amply applies to al Qaeda.

While the group continues to be dangerous, the faltering popularity of this campaign with most Muslims provides clear evidence of this dynamic underway. 

For instance, a Pew Global Attitudes Project poll released in September showed a remarkable drop in support for suicide bombing and Osama bin Laden in key Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and Jordan. In Pakistan, whereas some 41 percent approved of suicide terror attacks five years ago, that number has fallen to a mere 5 percent today.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/06/cronin.al.qaeda/index.html


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, the international community just kicked the American neo-con community dead in its collective dead ass.  You folks have been rebuked permanently.



I might not have stated it that way. But it does look as if Obama won for having the distinction of NOT being Baby Bush.

Speaks volumes.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 9, 2009)

Nothing so cheapens a prize than to give it to the undeserving


----------



## Ravi (Oct 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> After a lot of research, I found that no one knows exactly who nominated Obama, and I doubt they will step forward.  Like Xenaphon stated, it could very well be an intervention from God.
> There seems to be a lot of speculation on the blogs why he was chosen for the award.  Topping the list was to bolster his poll numbers to help get his far left agenda into policies.  Such as healthcare, and the Cap and Trade, and his leading this great nation down a path of stronger social issues.


And he's black, don't forget that. 

Yes, the entire world conspires with Obama against the US.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Obama effect....
> 
> A loss of popular support has ended many terrorist groups, and it is a plausible scenario for al Qaeda. Support can be compromised through miscalculation, especially in targeting, and popular backlash. The Real Irish Republican Army and India's Sikh separatists come to mind. Or a campaign can fail to convey a positive image or progress toward its goals, which amply applies to al Qaeda.
> 
> ...



98% of suicide bombers who have yet to blow themselves up support Obama.

Terrific


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Obama effect....



http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889886,00.html


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



That wasn't a terrorist act. The King David Hotel was the military command center for the Brits in Israel and was a military target. The Irgun also warned the Brits to get out before the bomb went off.

Arafat killed babies in carriages and school children on buses. Those weren't military targets.

Or do you not know the meaning of the word "terrorist"?

Arafat wasn't a "former" anything... he took U.S. money to sit down at the peace table and then, after getting about 98% of what he was asking, he said he couldn't sign the agreement because he'd "be drinking tea with Rabin".

And Suha took all that money and put it into her French bank account.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



sorry jillian, but the king david hotel bombing was a terrorist attack. a textbook example even.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Just found out.
> 
> My only question is...why? *What has he done?* I thought they gave out the award for actual accomplishments...not plans to accomplish something.



I asked the same question... Then I realized I know the answer.

Obama was awarded the "I hate America" Prize. Remember Cairo, Berlin, UN speech, talking down America, making apology for our greatness. 

It makes perfect sense to award the guy who never once mentioned America's exceptionalism, but so inwardly saw America's flawed enough to fundamentaly change it.

While the United States is in financial ruin from protecting peace in the Middle East, or before that in southeast Asia, and before that in Europe, they are dubbed too powerful, too wealthy, too aggressive, by those who never miss a meal in their palatial mansions and castles, while we lose our young kids. For what? 

Bottom line is... Well I can't fault Obama for this "honor", simply because he is truly a representative of what the Nobel has become, has lost from its original intent and how it is now used against any project undertaken by the United States. Does it sounds familiar? The same status the United Nations has sunk to while allowed to be on our soil, using our resources at great expense to our nation, when it is constantly publicized we are "late with our annual dues".

Just wait until some part of the world need our help again. They will crawl to America for help, for humanitarian or military assistance, for money we don't have.

We all know Obama's promises. Let's nominate him for a Nobel every year. Not just for peace price, but for literature, economics, all of them. For as long as he lives.


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> Republicans can't see this for what it is.  This is a stunning rebuke by the international community over what Bush and the Republicans did for the last eight years.
> 
> If they had gone after Bin Laden and destroyed the leadership of a terrorist organization that perpetrated the largest attack against the United States in modern history, it might have been Bush receiving this award.
> 
> ...



So they should give the Prize to everyone who's not Bush... Where's mine?


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> sorry jillian, but the king david hotel bombing was a terrorist attack. a textbook example even.



In your opinion... 

but attacking a military targets isn't a terrorist attack.

And THAT is textbook.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Nope, a military attack that came  with a prior warning of the event.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7bHkH779qg]YouTube - Obama: Nobel Peace Prize 'A Call to Action'[/ame]


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Irgun, the group which carried it out was a terrorist organization.  The warnings of the bombing were inadequate and incomplete - no one warned who had the official power to carry out an evacuation, so there was none until it was too late.  91 people were killed, most of them staff, clerks, typists, messengers and other low level workers.  All of them innocent.  It was a very powerful bomb and Some of the deaths  occurred on roads and property outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings.  Lest you think Irgun should be absolved of terrorism because they only concentrated on "military targets" they were responsible for planting land mines in a number of Arab markets including one in Haifa that killed some 70 people.  I doubt they were "military targets".

A bomb thrown by the Jewish terrorist organization Irgun Zvai Leumi from a speeding taxi today killed eleven Arabs and two British policemen and wounded at least thirty-two Arabs

...and a rather ironic article which points out the fine line between "terrorist"/"freedom fighter" in a commemoration event not much different from that of the Palestinians celebrating their terrorists.

or here: a list that reads much like Hamas or Hezbolla: Hamas: A Pale Image of the Jewish Irgun And Lehi Gangs

Irgun was a terrorist organization plain and simple and no amount of white-washing will change that.



> Arafat killed babies in carriages and school children on buses. Those weren't military targets.
> 
> *Or do you not know the meaning of the word "terrorist"?*



I think I know better than you do, the meaning of this hard to define term.



> Arafat wasn't a "former" anything... he took U.S. money to sit down at the peace table and then, after getting about 98% of what he was asking, he said he couldn't sign the agreement because he'd "be drinking tea with Rabin".
> 
> And Suha took all that money and put it into her French bank account.



Hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## namvet (Oct 9, 2009)

BTY Arafat's uncle hunted jews for the Nazi's. so the killer gene must have been passed down


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



I'm just letting you know when *I* woke up to the NPP.  1978?  I was wondering when, and where I was going to get my next lid.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 9, 2009)

So now we are discusssing Arafat who was by the way was only interested in the  plight of  Palaistians  as long as  he  benefited from it and make no mistake  Arafat was a terrorist from  a young age when he was  smuggling weapons into Israel to his participation in the  Munich Olympics  killings to numerous  murders. 

The Munich massacre is an informal name for events occurred during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, West Germany, when members of the Israeli Olympic team were taken hostage and eventually murdered by Black September, a militant group with ties to *Yasser Arafat&#8217;s *Fatah organization
Munich massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Awarding this coward and low life scum a peace prize  was and still is  the biggest  farce  that the Nobel prize committee ever  voted upon.  While  the  Obama  award  may have been premature, there is no way that anyone can compare  a scum like Arafat to President Obama  although I am sure many would try.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

This is the funniest thing I've heard in a while.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 9, 2009)

According to George Stephanopoulos the first reaction from White House staff on hearing the news was -
"It's not April 1, is it?" 

Surprised and Humbled, President Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize - ABC News


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Moving the goal posts


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 9, 2009)

I'm really at a loss here.  I have no idea why they gave Obama the Peace Prize.

And the things is, Obama is just as confused by it as everyone else.

He himself said he doesn't know what he did to deserve it, and was surprised they gave it to him.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2009)

The NPP to Obama is the international community's rejection of the Bush years ~ rightfully so.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The NPP to Obama is the international community's rejection of the Bush years ~ rightfully so.



They might as well have given it to Bush.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The NPP to Obama is the international community's rejection of the Bush years ~ rightfully so.



I agree, but honestly, I think it would have had much more impact if they had awarded it to him after he had been in office one year.  At this point, it looks like nothing more than what you said, but after one year, it would have been a clear statement of rejection of the Bush years.

Edit: What I mean there is that today it just seems like they are saying "We didn't like Bush so we are going to humiliate him by awarding his successor for nothing at all".  But, if they had waited a year, it would have been an outright slap in the face of the Bush policies and a clear approval of the work President Obama was completing.

Immie


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The NPP to Obama is the international community's rejection of the Bush years ~ rightfully so.
> ...



why would they have given it to mr pre-emptive attack?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Why would they give it to mr. bomb innocent civilians?  Makes just as much sense either way.


----------



## MalibuMan (Oct 9, 2009)

This is absured. Where's Reagan's peace prize? He actually did something like end the cold war!


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Well, for starters, he actually did something.  The only thing Obama has accomplished is picking out a dog.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Speaking of Arafat, Peres and Rabin... they won Nobel Peace prize.

But did they signed anything?


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 9, 2009)

A couple of cute twitters regarding Obama's Nobel:

Congrats to President Obama but I find it a bit odd he won the nobel peace prize the same morning the U.S. declared war on the moon. Joy Behar

Nobel announcement elevates Glenn Beck threat level from "crying" to "shrieking" -Chris Lehmann

Update: Nobel Prize awarded not just to those who are not George Bush; must also not be John McCain. -Ana Marie Cox 

Obama also awarded Nobel prize in chemistry. "He's just got great chemistry," says Nobel Committee. -Ezra Klein 

I can't believe I just won an OSCAR after only having a couple of pitch meetings! Thanks everyone!  -Drew Carey 

For a guy who won the Peace Prize, Obama didn't seem to be helping with the whole Jon & Kate debacle. -Moe

They should institute a Nobel Prize for driving conservatives crazy. -Matty Iglesias


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 9, 2009)

I think we all agree here, including Mr Obama, that the Nobel Prize people are wrong.

I mean, you can't really tell them to take the Peace Prize back, I guess, and as President you'd be creating some bad relations by doing that.

But Obama has made it clear that he for one thinks he hasn't done enough to deserve it.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 9, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> I think we all agree here, including Mr Obama, that the Nobel Prize people are wrong.
> 
> I mean, you can't really tell them to take the Peace Prize back, I guess, and as President you'd be creating some bad relations by doing that.
> 
> But Obama has made it clear that he for one thinks he hasn't done enough to deserve it.



No they're not wrong.  Let somebody like World Net Daily give some R a prize...


----------



## mal (Oct 9, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> I think we all agree here, including Mr Obama, that the Nobel Prize people are wrong.
> 
> I mean, you can't really tell them to take the Peace Prize back, I guess, and as President you'd be creating some bad relations by doing that.
> 
> But Obama has made it clear that he for one thinks he hasn't done enough to deserve it.



He could've said that he wasn't Worthy, and to Grade him a couple of Years...

Would have been... Statesmen like...

But then again...



peace...


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 9, 2009)

I have been asking myself what the GOP stance should be.  Well, after considerable thought I feel the GOP should counter this obvious slap in the face to their beliefs by adding a new initiative to their platform.  The new initiative could be something like:

"SAY NO TO PEACE!"

"DOWN WITH PEACE!"

"MAKE WAR, NOT LOVE!"

Yup, I think they should take a stand on this!  That will teach those peace loving fanatics!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I have been asking myself what the GOP stance should be.  Well, after considerable thought I feel the GOP should counter this obvious slap in the face to their beliefs by adding a new initiative to their platform.  The new initiative could be something like:
> 
> "SAY NO TO PEACE!"
> 
> ...



And what peace has Obama advocated?  Was his bombing of innocent civilians in Pakistan peaceful?  How about the escalation of the war in Afghanistan?  How about our continued occupation of Iraq?  None of that amounts to peace from where I'm sitting.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Is this something he learned at Hogwarts?


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I think this is one of the funniest days of my life.  I was anxious to see what the GOP response would be to Obama being awarded this prize.  I have been laughing all morning at the "Party of No."
> 
> *Rather than give Obama even a tiny bit of credit for his efforts for peace, they have, predictably, dismissed and criticized the decision. * FUNNY!
> 
> ...



Give it a rest Jim.  There's a pretty big difference between a "tiny bit of credit" and a Nobel prize.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Polk said:


> Ame®icano;1596767 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But retracted it after a few days.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> Republicans can't see this for what it is.  This is a stunning rebuke by the international community over what Bush and the Republicans did for the last eight years.
> 
> If they had gone after Bin Laden and destroyed the leadership of a terrorist organization that perpetrated the largest attack against the United States in modern history, it might have been Bush receiving this award.
> 
> ...



This may be a rebuke by the Nobel committee, but from what I've seen in the foreign press most of the international community is, to say the least, surprised.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, the international community just kicked the American neo-con community dead in its collective dead ass.  You folks have been rebuked permanently.



Can you provide some links to examples of the international community (_not_ foreign politicians who have a vested interest in sucking up to Obama) saying that they wholeheartedly agree with this?


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> So now we are discusssing Arafat who was by the way was only interested in the  plight of  Palaistians  as long as  he  benefited from it and make no mistake  Arafat was a terrorist from  a young age when he was  smuggling weapons into Israel to his participation in the  Munich Olympics  killings to numerous  murders.
> 
> The Munich massacre is an informal name for events occurred during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, West Germany, when members of the Israeli Olympic team were taken hostage and eventually murdered by Black September, a militant group with ties to *Yasser Arafats *Fatah organization
> Munich massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



No one is defending giving it to Arafat or saying he wasn't a terrorist, just pointing out the hypocrisy that constantly brings Arafat up but ignores the fact that Begin was also a terrorist and than excuses it.

It's hard to make sense of the Nobel Peace Prize sometimes, and this is one of those times.


----------



## NO!bama08 (Oct 9, 2009)

LOL. I heard that he was only in office two months when the voting was closed! This removes all credibility from the Nobel Prize. Imagine that..... Obamacorn the socialist idiot elected by idiots wins the Nobel Prize. Can't quit laughing.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

NO!bama08 said:


> LOL. I heard that he was only in office two months when the voting was closed! This removes all credibility from the Nobel Prize. Imagine that..... Obamacorn the socialist idiot elected by idiots wins the Nobel Prize. Can't quit laughing.



Feb. 1, 2009 the voting closed.  So more like two weeks.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

NO!bama08 said:


> LOL. I heard that he was only in office two months when the voting was closed! This removes all credibility from the Nobel Prize. Imagine that..... Obamacorn the socialist idiot elected by idiots wins the Nobel Prize. Can't quit laughing.





He's not an idiot.  And a lot of pretty intelligent people voted for him.  You can't dismiss this award on that basis.  It's facile.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 9, 2009)

NO!bama08 said:


> LOL. I heard that he was only in office two months when the voting was closed! This removes all credibility from the Nobel Prize. Imagine that..... Obamacorn the socialist idiot elected by idiots wins the Nobel Prize. Can't quit laughing.


right an American wins the Nobel Prize and the right hates it.  An American city loses the 2016 Olympiad and the right rejoices.

Why does the Right insist they are pro-American?  They ridicule American victories and rejoice over American defeat.

I don't find anything funny about that.  It's just sad.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> NO!bama08 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. I heard that he was only in office two months when the voting was closed! This removes all credibility from the Nobel Prize. Imagine that..... Obamacorn the socialist idiot elected by idiots wins the Nobel Prize. Can't quit laughing.
> ...



Well the peace prize should go to people that actually promote peace, and the Olympics would have been a colossal waste of taxpayer money.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> NO!bama08 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. I heard that he was only in office two months when the voting was closed! This removes all credibility from the Nobel Prize. Imagine that..... Obamacorn the socialist idiot elected by idiots wins the Nobel Prize. Can't quit laughing.
> ...



Substitute the word "Obama's" for "American".  That may help you.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> NO!bama08 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. I heard that he was only in office two months when the voting was closed! This removes all credibility from the Nobel Prize. Imagine that..... Obamacorn the socialist idiot elected by idiots wins the Nobel Prize. Can't quit laughing.
> ...



Just checking, are you joking and you realize that Feb 1 was the last day for nominations or did you think the voting actually took place on 2/1?

Truly it would be a joke if the voting took place on the final day of nominations and only 12 days after his inauguration.

Immie


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > NO!bama08 said:
> ...



Has anyone posted when the voting took place?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > NO!bama08 said:
> ...



My mistake.  I meant nominations.


----------



## Polk (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Reasonable people can have differences of opinion.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

NO!bama08 said:


> LOL. I heard that he was only in office two months when the voting was closed! This removes all credibility from the Nobel Prize. Imagine that..... Obamacorn the socialist idiot elected by idiots wins the Nobel Prize. Can't quit laughing.



From: Nobel Prizes - MSN Encarta
Nominations of candidates are due on February 1 of the award year. Then, Nobel committee members and consultants meet several times to evaluate the qualifications of the nominees. *The various committees cast their final votes in October *and immediately notify the laureates that they have won.


(Can't stop laughing )


----------



## Polk (Oct 9, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > NO!bama08 said:
> ...



Would that brand of reflexive opposition really be any better?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Not that I know of but surely it was not on the same day as the end of nominations.  Surely the committee would have to have a chance to review the accomplishments of all nominees.  Of course, the ultimate winner's accomplishments are debatable at this time, so maybe it is just a popularity contest.  

At least that is how it appears.

Edited with appreciation to Coyote.



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Thought so and just wanted to clarify it.

Immie


----------



## mal (Oct 9, 2009)

Polk said:


> For all of Arafat's faults, I think his win was more justified, considering the context in which it occurred. You've got to remember we can look at the Oslo Accords today through the lenses of what happened after. That wasn't the case in 1994.



At least Arafat had an Actual Record of being Anti-Jew...

Barry hasn't Established that yet, but I am Sure he will, as is Nobel.



peace...


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

I see many voices of reason here from both sides. Majority here agrees that Obama did not earn this one. At least not yet.

However, there are some so desperate for any Obama's victory that they will even take an empty one at this point.

Pathetic.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Polk said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Blindly supporting or ridiculing someone is always silly.


----------



## mal (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1597337 said:
			
		

> I see many voices of reason here from both sides. Majority here agrees that Obama did not earn this one. At least not yet.
> 
> However, there are some so desperate for any Obama's victory that they will even take an empty one at this point.
> 
> Pathetic.



I am Surprised by some on the Left like David Sarota...

He was saying this Morning on the Err Amerika Affiliate out of the (p)eople's (r)epublic of Boulder that it was Shameless for Nobel to do it...

And Sarota is to the Left of Stalin...



peace...


----------



## Polk (Oct 9, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



On this I agree.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1597337 said:
			
		

> I see many voices of reason here from both sides. Majority here agrees that Obama did not earn this one. At least not yet.
> 
> However, there are some so desperate for any Obama's victory that they will even take an empty one at this point.
> 
> Pathetic.



....and there are some so desperate for an Obama failure that they will do anything, whether it's ridicule a Peace Prize he did not ask for or cheer the fact that Chicago did not get the Olympics to proclaim a failure for Obama.

Pathetic, indeed.


----------



## mal (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1597337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are People on the Left who Believe this was Patently Unwaranted or Earned...

What are they?...

Sometimes People are just Observing the Obvious and NOT being Partisan.



peace...


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1597337 said:
> ...




Yup....like those celebrating Chicago's loss....not partisan at all.....

Chaos damn it!


----------



## Caroljo (Oct 9, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unfucking believable. We can now officially write that award off as absolutely MEANINGLESS. And we can assume the committee is full of idiots, retards and political hacks..



It was meaningless after Carter got it, then Gore got it, now Obama (the 3 stooges!! ha!)...oh ya, 4 stooges, it was given to the terrorist Arrafat too!  Nice company he's in!


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1596466 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I havent replied earlier on this one, I had to check past winners.

I am not saying "leftwingers who win"... I am saying that "only leftwingers win". It's award for leftists given by the leftists, weather they deserve it or not.

Gore, Anan, Carter, Arafat... any of them deserve it? I doubt it.


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1597337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you notice the story about the kid who was beaten to death in Chicago less than a week before the Olympics pitch?  Maybe there are more important concerns in Chicago than bringing a bunch of international athletes there to be shot, stabbed and raped (in that order).  If Obama wants to represent Chicago maybe he should address the problems that are going on there.  But no, he'd rather trade on the political favor exchange.  I think that kool-aid you're drinking has some lead in it.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1597337 said:
> ...



Chicago has a lot of SERIOUS concerns - no one is denying that.  But the majority of it's citizens wanted the Olympics as did the majority of Americans.

NYC has many serious concerns, including violence yet I heard nobody cheering the fact that they did not get the nomination last time nor is anyone stating that they have other problems to be addressed.

Quite telling.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1597337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No need to ridicule Nobel Peace Prize, because they ridicule themselves. 

They were prestigious award back in time, not anymore. 

Also, I never said that not getting Olympics is Obama failure, although I was satisfied he and his ego didn't get it.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1597398 said:
			
		

> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1596466 said:
> ...



Arafat was a questionable choice, but then so was Begin but the rational for both of them, in partnership with others, in one moment of time - validates it (in my opinion).

Gore and Carter I disagree with you on (which I stated previously why).  They are also both figures the right loves to hate.

Anan.  I don't know.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1597426 said:
			
		

> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1597337 said:
> ...



You may not have said it, but the second part of your statement says a lot - in denying it to Obama, you denied something the majority of Americans (not just those who voted for Obama) wanted for their country - another U.S. Olympics.  Who's ego is bigger?


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> the majority of it's citizens wanted the Olympics as did the majority of Americans.





Wrong on both counts:

Many Chicagoans hope city loses vote Friday - Olympic Sports- nbcsports.msnbc.com

43% View Obamaâ&#8364;&#8482;s Olympic Trip As Bad Idea, 36% Disagree - Rasmussen Reports&#8482;

Quite telling.  Idiot. 

P.S. when has the president of the US ever gone to pitch an Olympic bid before?  Maybe that's why it hasn't been politicized before.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

A friend of mine made up this image.


----------



## xsited1 (Oct 9, 2009)




----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

Polk said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



There was nothing reasonable about Arafat getting the NPP.  That's just baloney.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1597398 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough. You have your oppinions and I respect that you stand for them.

Arafat did not signed any peace agreement with Israel. Then, how does he qualify for a Prize?

Anan was head of UN Secretary General for about 10 years. He did not achieve anything by himself, except personal gain for him and his son thru UN's "oil for food" program.

I disagree on Gore. All he did was for personal gain, only. Look where is Al Gore now, how much he's worth and how he acts. Anyways, we could have a discussion on "global warming vs. climate change" someplace else.

I disagree on Carter too. While president he created several crisis. He pledged to withdraw troops from Korea, and he didn't do it. Russians invaded Afghanistan on his watch, he was weak on making decisions. He's not the one who does deserve credit for peace agreement in between Israel and Egypt, Sadat is. Camp david was just result of Sadat will. Did he went to North Korea and later said that Kim Il Sung is intelligent and vigorous leader? C'mon.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1597426 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I said I am glad Obama didn't get it for Chicago. If Chicago won on it's own, I would be more then happy to have Olympics there. 

There is no question about who got bigger ego. Obama "own it".


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Wrong on both counts:
> 
> Many Chicagoans hope city loses vote Friday - Olympic Sports- nbcsports.msnbc.com
> 
> ...



Speaking of idiots , maybe you ought to read your own links?



> A poll released this month by the Chicago Tribune showed residents almost evenly split, with *47 percent in favor of the bid and 45 percent against;* that's a drop from the 2-1 support the newspaper found in a February poll.
> 
> The 2016 bid committee said its own poll last week s*hows support from 72 percent of Chicagoans*. But even that segment has concerns.



A majority.




Quite telling indeed...


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> rubberhead said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong on both counts:
> ...



Wow!  So the 2016 Olympic Bid Committee did its own polls and found that 72 percent wanted it?  I'm sure that the *Olympic Bid Committee* isn't biased at all.  Are you really that stupid?  I guess you are if you think 47 percent is a majority.  You lose.  Just accept it.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1597527 said:
			
		

> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1597426 said:
> ...



There is no way to tell whether Chicago would have gotten it with or without Obama's pitch - you really can't seperate it out.  As far as "big ego"....why is it a "big ego" for a U.S. President to attempt to make a pitch, but not for the heads of other countries to go in and make a pitch? Is it ego or is it simply trying to win something for your country?

I think the ego is in those cheering the loss because any loss is better than a victory for them, and their "victory",  in the end - is pyrrhic.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rubberhead said:
> ...




47% is a majority over 45%.

Speaking of stupid, perhaps you are to take such faith in Rassmussen.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

I have to say, I've been laughing my ass off at the fact Obama won this. I've seen every Republican talking point repeated everywhere throughout the day.

What some clowns fail to realize is that this is more of a rejection of the Bush Administration than anything about what Obama has done.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rubberhead said:
> ...


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> rubberhead said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Nope, wrong again dumbass.

majority - n - the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority ): the majority of the population. 

This (the 47/45 poll) was the Tribune's poll of Chicagoans btw, Rasmussen's poll was of Americans in general.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> I have to say, I've been laughing my ass off at the fact Obama won this. I've seen every Republican talking point repeated everywhere throughout the day.
> 
> What some clowns fail to realize is that this is more of a rejection of the Bush Administration than anything about what Obama has done.



Yes, but Obama hasn't done much of anything different than Bush.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rubberhead said:
> ...



Ok.  Fair enough.

But Zogby gives a much different picture of support.


----------



## driveby (Oct 9, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> EAT YOUR DARK HEARTS OUT
> 
> Beck, Hannity, Dobbs, Malkin, OReilly and all of the other right wing-nuts and village idiots. Especially FOX-IDIOTS.
> lol
> ...



I don't know what you said there kid, but it touched my heart.....


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 9, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say, I've been laughing my ass off at the fact Obama won this. I've seen every Republican talking point repeated everywhere throughout the day.
> ...



So far,  Obama = Bush - decisiveness


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yes, but Obama hasn't done much of anything different than Bush.



Obama hasn't started two wars, one under false pretenses. Do you think the Nobel Peace Group liked that? Hell, they probably would of gave one to McCain too if he had won. As long as it wasn't Bush.


----------



## Liability (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Unfucking believable. We can now officially write that award off as absolutely MEANINGLESS. And we can assume the committee is full of idiots, retards and political hacks..
> ...



But but but, he had campaigned for much longer.  He was the front man for *THE AMERICA SUCKS WORLD TOUR.*​  Clearly, if one declares internationally that America Sucks, then one is promoting peace in the world!

Those Nobel guys are like totally awesome and shit.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but Obama hasn't done much of anything different than Bush.
> ...



He hasn't attacked Pakistan?  He hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan?  He hasn't continued Bush's aggressive rhetoric towards Iran?  Not to mention that we're still in Iraq.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> So far,  Obama = Bush - decisiveness



Bush's decisiveness got thousands of our men and women killed, billions if not trillions on our national debt, and a war under false pretenses. Oh, and our men and women sent into the line of fine without the necessary equipment or manpower.


----------



## American I Am (Oct 9, 2009)

I was just thinking, maybe it's possible, we could get "Kanye West" to run up on stage, and hand out the Nobel, to the person he thinks is most deserving.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> rubberhead said:
> 
> 
> > So far,  Obama = Bush - decisiveness
> ...



None of which has been changed under Obama.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> He hasn't attacked Pakistan?  He hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan?  He hasn't continued Bush's aggressive rhetoric towards Iran?  Not to mention that we're still in Iraq.



I agree we should leave Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm simply telling you that Bush started two wars, Obama has not started any wars. Besides, Obama's aggressive rhetoric towards Iran? 

You might want to talk to some of your breathen about that, they seem to think the complete opposite. Also, I haven't seen him do much about Afghanistan yet. We can't win in Afghanistan. Just like we can't win in Iraq. The faster we realize that, the faster we can leave.


----------



## driveby (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > too early.
> ...



If a conservative was in office for 10 days and won i would still say the award is worthless. Have you ever taken an issue straight on without deflecting or projecting ?  seriously ......


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> None of which has been changed under Obama.



Obama needs to bring them home, if he's not then he needs to fix that. However, the whole reason we are still in these two countries is the mismanagement of both wars by the prior Administration.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > He hasn't attacked Pakistan?  He hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan?  He hasn't continued Bush's aggressive rhetoric towards Iran?  Not to mention that we're still in Iraq.
> ...



My brethren?  Libertarians don't think Obama has been aggressive towards Iran?  I think you're incorrect about that.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > None of which has been changed under Obama.
> ...



No, the reason we're still in these two countries, and bombing Pakistan, is because Obama hasn't put a stop to it.  He's been the Commander-in-Chief since January.  If he really wanted to end those wars he would have done so months ago.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ame®icano;1597527 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let me try again.

Chicago wasn't front runner. Rio was. At this point, if Chicago beat Rio, I would be happy.

Obama decide to pitch for Chicago, counting that his highness presence will be enough for Chicago to win Olympic bid.

It didn't help. IOC return Obama back to Earth. I am glad they did.


----------



## driveby (Oct 9, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> President Obama with a Nobel. Sweet. Now to get the Health Care bill passed. Then Cap and Trade, as a beginning in both cases.
> 
> Poor Conservatives. Total incompetance rewarded, your people were voted out big time in the last election, and the two fellows you people love to hate, Gore and Obama, have a Nobel each, and are exemplery successes. Gotta love it.




It would be an accomplishment if the Nobel actually meant anything anymore, so congrats to Obama for joining the likes of Arafat .......


----------



## Liability (Oct 9, 2009)

Congratulations, Mr. President.

You earned it!


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> I have to say, I've been laughing my ass off at the fact Obama won this. I've seen every Republican talking point repeated everywhere throughout the day.
> 
> What some clowns fail to realize is that this is more of a rejection of the Bush Administration than anything about what Obama has done.



Question:  Is that supposed to somehow make him worthy of the prize?

Bush was a failure, but, does that mean that President Obama is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize?  Were there really no worthy nominees?

Immie


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> what the fuck has he done to promote peace?
> 
> ...



When is the nightmare over?  

Did Soros pay for this too?


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

All this whinning by the pussies on the right is wonderful.

It's going to be a great eight years.


----------



## alan1 (Oct 9, 2009)

Additional awards for Mr Obama.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31nqvyBTWis&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Barack Obama Wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize and...[/ame]


----------



## driveby (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> All this whinning by the pussies on the right is wonderful.
> 
> It's going to be a great eight years.





The Nobel Prize has become the "Special Olympics" for the far left kooks, pun intended .....


----------



## Qball (Oct 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> Republicans can't see this for what it is.  This is a stunning rebuke by the international community over what Bush and the Republicans did for the last eight years.



Uh, that's pretty much the way I see it, and that's pretty much the reason why I think it's bullshit.


----------



## Theorist (Oct 9, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> EAT YOUR DARK HEARTS OUT
> 
> Beck, Hannity, Dobbs, Malkin, OReilly and all of the other right wing-nuts and village idiots. Especially FOX-IDIOTS.
> lol
> ...



what exactly is your point anyway?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 9, 2009)

Maybe Obama was set up by the PEACENIKS?  They gave it to Obama, right now, as he is making the decision on what to do in Afghanistan, send more troops for 10 more years of WARRING or bring the troops home?  The Peaceniks thought that if they gave him the Peace Prize it might be embarrassing for him to continue to commit to WAR?  

How's THAT, for a conspiracy?


----------



## Yurt (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> All this whinning by the pussies on the right is wonderful.
> 
> It's going to be a great eight years.



nah....giving him the prize actually hurts him and america....people are tired of his messiah status....

he should have turned the prize down


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 9, 2009)

Obama himself said he has done nothing to deserve the award, but what is he supposed to do, give it back?  As many have said in this thread, this is more a slap to Bush than anything.

At least now FOX news has something to whine about this weekend.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 9, 2009)

Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.

The only difference is how rabid one side or other becomes because the world apparently really likes Obama.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 9, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > I think we all agree here, including Mr Obama, that the Nobel Prize people are wrong.
> ...




That's what he did say...


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 9, 2009)

Polk said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



So? Does the fact that a previous winner was inexperienced make it any more correct that Obama has won?


----------



## Qball (Oct 9, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.
> 
> The only difference is how rabid one side or other becomes because the world apparently really likes Obama.



...or rather, how rabid one side claims the other side becomes whenever it's confirmed that people really like Obama.


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

Obama deserved to win.

He has completely changed the world's political climate.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Obama wins dancing with the stars!
> 
> Why not, he didn't do that either.



Actually, he did. That prestigious award is not widely publicized because it's was accomplished together with Sarah Palin.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TvlanYslAQ]YouTube - Obama gets a Nobel Prize[/ame]


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.
> 
> The only difference is how rabid one side or other becomes because the world apparently really likes Obama.



If everyone agrees he didn't deserve this, I wouldn't be surprised to see global opinion of him decline a few points as a result of it.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > sorry jillian, but the king david hotel bombing was a terrorist attack. a textbook example even.
> ...



ah,ah. nice qualifiers there. attack military target = no terrorist attack.

also, warnings before attack = no terrorist attack.

anymore qualifiers, because those two will blow up in your face?

my textbook for the definition of a terrorist attack does not allow qualifiers, especially not if i agree with the ones carrying out the attack. call them terrorists, partisans, insurgents, freedom fighters, i don't care, the method and tactic is the same.

there may be shades of more "terroristy" attacks than others, like with torture, still TERRORIST ATTACKS, killing hotel employees, canteen workers and so on. they were not aware of a warning, were they?

btw, we in the western world have all been warned. don't go near any building with something military-like associated with it. you might become a victim of a non-terrorist attack.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 9, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


Qualifiers are necessary, for those interested in accuracy, that is.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.
> 
> The only difference is how rabid one side or other* becomes because the world apparently really likes Obama*.



So much for the rightwingnut argument that he's pissed off all our allies and the international community...


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 9, 2009)

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



qualifiers are necessary for rationalization. and those interested in promoting their double standards. don't go near the pentagon. bill ayers was a freedom fighter.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



In this case, let me add a "qualifiar": they weren't all military targets.


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.
> ...



You know where the Peace Prize comes from right?  Norway is not the entire international community nor do they speak for the international community.  Idiot.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.
> ...



The only argument that matters is that he did not deserve the award. Period. End of story.

Bono is more qualified than Obama.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Check out the international community's response to both the Nobel Prize and, in general, their ratings of Obama.

You might be surprised.

Moron.


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> rubberhead said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The international community spoke when they denied Obama the Olympics.  Fool.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.
> ...



Despite the fact that I don't think he deserved the award, my opinion of him definitely did not go down over this (and no, that is not because it is at rock bottom which it is not) because I don't think he had a say in his selection.  Maybe, just maybe, his PR team had a hand in getting him the nomination, but that is a far cry from getting him the award.

This was a poor choice by the committee.  My opinion of the award has dropped, but not my opinion of the President.

Immie


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 9, 2009)

A picture Obama looks at daily

Picture Gallery Pop-Up


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Elegant way of putting it. Thanks.

The award is even more meaningless than before. But this is not, nor could it be, blamed on Obama.

Can't blame the guy for accepting. Would be more stupid to refuse the award.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rubberhead said:
> ...



I'm beginning to think you really are as retarded as you sound.  Please prove me wrong.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

Twelve pages... twelve pages and no one has explain what he did in those 12 days in the office just to receive the nomination? Just the length of this thread and the pretty large majority of people wondering why the hell he got this award speaks volumes.  

There is some irony at least. The fact is that Obama won this award, but in the end it doesn't really matter. With all the important things to worry about, and after embarrassing list of previous winners, who won the last Nobel peace prize is really low on my list of priorities. But I am still posting here, in disbelieve I would say, cause every time I thought I've seen it all, there is more.

The question is, after all "achievements" in the past nine months, what's next for Obama? Is there more?


----------



## Yurt (Oct 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



actually it would have looked better for this country and obama....


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 9, 2009)

Yurt said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I disagree. It would have put egg on the face of the country to refuse.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



In another thread I joked about how I would refuse the award, but truthfully, he could not have refused it.

I have not heard his speech about it today, but from what I read, I think he said the right things.  Now whether he actually believed what he said or it was what the telepromter (aka his speech writers) told him he should say I have no idea, but it appeared that he at least spoke the right words.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



In a nutshell.


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 9, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rubberhead said:
> ...



So the IOC committee now speaks for the world.  You voted for GW twice and now you are reaping the results....congrats!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > too early.
> ...



what did he do Sarah in those first 10 days?....dont you understand what these posters are saying?....by giving this award to people who dont deserve it.....*the Noble people are minimizing this award not the cons..*..geezus sometimes you are dense....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 9, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> *More signs sanity is returning to world politics, may it stay - Bravo.*
> 
> 
> Facts on the Nobel Peace Prizes
> ...



another idiot chimes in......


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 9, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The NPP to Obama is the international community's rejection of the Bush years ~ rightfully so.



This is an interesting point. World rejected Bush's policies, which for your information Obama continued. The award may not go to someone who toppled a tyrant or ended a conflict, but rather to persons who showed a persistent effort in promoting a worthy cause. But what is Obama's worthy cause? What has Obama done that is so great and admirable, in nine months other than not being his Republican predecessor? Most of his policies are strikingly similar to those of Bush. He hasn't withdrawn from Iraq or Afghanistan, he did not closed Guantanamo, his efforts to stop nuclear proliferation and condemn dictatorships are a general part of US foreign policy, and have not sprung up the moment he took office. The most noteworthy change might be the pressure he put on Israelis to stop expanding their settlements and on that issue he was ignored anyway.

He received this award because of his undeserved popularity. Some are saying that he's well liked around the world. So is Brad Pitt, and Madonna.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1598589 said:
			
		

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The NPP to Obama is the international community's rejection of the Bush years ~ rightfully so.
> ...



Yup. Like I said. A very convincing and factual case could be made that Bono deserves it more than Obama.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Finally a president the US has that the world respects.
> 
> DC - yes he was nominated two weeks after he was elected, however the choosing of the winner wasn't done until recently.



i thought Billy boy was "respected".....


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Interesting point, with which I agree, but I was speaking of global opinion not yours, nor indeed the opinion of Americans.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 9, 2009)

Ame®icano;1598589 said:
			
		

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The NPP to Obama is the international community's rejection of the Bush years ~ rightfully so.
> ...



  



> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ame®icano again.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 9, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> Bravo bravo bravo....



you popped a chub didnt ya Midcant...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 9, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > You just know they got it right when all the conservatives on this board are frothing at the mouth..
> ...



with two vacations already?....on our dole.....


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > He hasn't attacked Pakistan?  He hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan?  He hasn't continued Bush's aggressive rhetoric towards Iran?  Not to mention that we're still in Iraq.
> ...


that is fucking stupid and ignorant of the facts
Bush DIDN'T "start" 2 wars
that's a fucking LIE
the war in Iraq was already started and as for Afgahnistan, we were attacked FIRST
so stop with that bullshit already


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

driveby said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


no, that moron hasnt


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Bullshit.

Bush started two wars.

One a war of neccessity: wiping out the Al Queda strongholds in Afghanistan.

The other a war of choice: Iraq. Iraq was not a threat to us.

Quit apologizing for his administration.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



Hey, my opinion is part of the global opinion but I understand what you were saying.  I'm just pointing out that not all, and especially not all of those of us who did not vote for President Obama, blame him for his "bad luck" at having been nominated at least one year too early.  

Immie


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



are you going to include Obama's staff members which voted for the Iraq war in that statement?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> All this whinning by the pussies on the right is wonderful.
> 
> It's going to be a great eight years.


what a fucking moron
this has NOTHING to do with left/right
this is the Nobel prize for PEACE
what had Obama done worthy of such an award prior to feb 1st 2009?
name ONE thing that he had done prior to that point in time that earned him a nomination?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> that is fucking stupid and ignorant of the facts
> Bush DIDN'T "start" 2 wars
> that's a fucking LIE
> the war in Iraq was already started and as for Afgahnistan, we were attacked FIRST
> so stop with that bullshit already



One was a war that was necessary as previously mentioned (Afghanistan).

However, the War in Iraq wasn't already started. Dubya willingly chose to attack Iraq.


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > that is fucking stupid and ignorant of the facts
> ...



as did key members of Obama's current staff.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Yup.

And the Congressmen who did.

But most of all the ones who SOLD the war on false data.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> as did key members of Obama's current staff.



I'm not denying that as fact. Hillary and Biden did in fact vote for the war. However, Dive here is trying to deny that Bush attacked Iraq willingly. The war had not already started.


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



That would include Emanuel and Biden.


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > as did key members of Obama's current staff.
> ...



I don't know you could say it started in 1989 and never ceased.  I am sure all the people who died from Clinton's air raids would consider that a war.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


i disagree
i think it would have put a shining light had he refused as not being deserving


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Great. They were wrong as well.

The whole Iraq debacle has been debated ad naseum over the past 6-1/2 years. Since I never debated on this board (and I don't really have an urge to get into it now), I will just say that I was against it then, now, and always will be. All the people who were in on the decision, no matter what party or position they held or currently hold, were absolutely wrong. And whats worse than that is that many of them knew it was wrong. But went along with it for political expediency and re-election concerns. At least Bush honestly believed (IMO) that he was doing something right (even though I was one of his most vocal critics on MB's concerning his push for war).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2009)

The international community has endorsed Obama's victory and the bad guys and gals' defeat.  Good riddance to rubbish is the message here -- the neo-cons are never coming back to power.  Get used to it.  You are finis.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



They weren't the salesmen.

Who do the intellegence agencies answer directly to?  Who sees all the data?


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The international community has endorsed Obama's victory and the bad guys and gals' defeat.  Good riddance to rubbish is the message here -- the neo-cons are never coming back to power.  Get used to it.  You are finis.



oh really buttfuck?  who makes up the international community that endorses the great one's victory?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


wrong again, asswipe
you are a fucking idiot if you think bush STARTED those wars


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Think how it would have spun in the media. Way, way too easy to cast him, and by extension the rest of the country, into a negative light.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> I don't know you could say it started in 1989 and never ceased.  I am sure all the people who died from Clinton's air raids would consider that a war.



Those air raids were wrong. They also happened to continue under Dubya too. The actual war did not continue from 1989 on. At most you could try and call it a proxy war of sorts but that would be false.


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Biden was head of the intelligence committee.  You're saying he didn't know what was going on?  actually, given his performances the last couple years, you may be on to something.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > that is fucking stupid and ignorant of the facts
> ...


wrong again, there was only a CEASE FIRE
learn what that means before you attempt to correct me again


----------



## Si modo (Oct 9, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The international community has endorsed Obama's victory and the bad guys and gals' defeat.  Good riddance to rubbish is the message here -- the neo-cons are never coming back to power.  Get used to it.  You are finis.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/90915-headlines-from-around-the-world.html

Get informed.


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know you could say it started in 1989 and never ceased.  I am sure all the people who died from Clinton's air raids would consider that a war.
> ...



Vietnam was a proxy war.


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The international community has endorsed Obama's victory and the bad guys and gals' defeat.  Good riddance to rubbish is the message here -- the neo-cons are never coming back to power.  Get used to it.  You are finis.
> ...



Ringo is incapable of such a feat.


----------



## Catbert (Oct 9, 2009)

The Norweigan Peace Prize panel is a hard-Left leaning group.
------------
The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee &#8212; four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize in vote seen as encouraging his promise of diplomacy, disarmament -- themorningcall.com

Looks like old Barry has a lot to live up to now, doesn't it.  Could that be the underlying reason for the award? Force the peace issue on the little puppet man, then sit back and watch as he avoids national defense issues.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know you could say it started in 1989 and never ceased.  I am sure all the people who died from Clinton's air raids would consider that a war.
> ...


Idiot.  Wrong.  There was a cease fire.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


yeah, all those guys were duped by the moronic idiot Bush
 
if so, why do they keep getting elected if the moron bush could dupe them


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Right.  I forgot.  Iraq invaded us and we retaliated.

Apologist.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Vietnam was a proxy war.



Yes it was. It was a war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Plus China to a extent as well.

However, I wouldn't call the air raids on Iraq a proxy war which is why I said it would be false.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Idiot.  Wrong.  There was a cease fire.



 So that justifies bombing Iraq to the stone age and invading the country? The fact that there was a cease fire?


----------



## Coyote (Oct 9, 2009)

Catbert said:


> The Norweigan Peace Prize panel is a hard-Left leaning group.
> ------------
> The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee  four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.
> 
> ...



Sounds like you're saying peace is a leftist.  I guess that means war is rightist.


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



except clinton continued to bomb Iraq when Saddam wouldn't follow his orders.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


Yup.  Iraq broke the cease fire often.  We responded.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> except clinton continued to bomb Iraq when Saddam wouldn't follow his orders.



After the Gulf War, Saddam didn't have any weapons anymore like in the caliber before the Gulf War. Saddam was bluffing, Clinton bombed Iraq. Saddam was bluffing Dubya, Dubya invaded.

Though I could see why Saddam did bluff the entire world.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


Still having trouble with that reading comprehension, eh?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Bingo has no idea what he is talking about.  Do you, Willis?


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes, Kimberly, I do.


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


Kimberly?  he told me his name was Jackie...oh maybe that was when he was in the big house.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> All this whinning by the pussies on the right is wonderful.
> 
> It's going to be a great eight years.



Interesting, all know this was a farce, left, right & center, yet there are some who continue to believe deceit is great, go figure......


----------



## Zona (Oct 9, 2009)

Did you all hear, Obama won something today?


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 9, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > All this whinning by the pussies on the right is wonderful.
> ...



It wasn't a farce.  It basically was the Nobel Prize committee sticking it to Bush and his policies.  It was their decision, not ours.  It heightens the expectations for Obama's policies.  It increases pressure for this administration to succeed in:

-Middle East Peace Plan
-Containing and stopping Iranian Nuclear ambitions
-Stopping the return of the Taliban in Afganistan
-Elimination of Al Quida and its ambitions

Some of these necessitate military might, others mean international pressure and cooperation.  All in all, Peace should be the ultimate goal.

Whether you agree with the award or not, you need to admit a message is being sent to the world.


----------



## Meister (Oct 9, 2009)

Zona said:


> Did you all hear, Obama won something today?



Nothing like the board troll to put his bits worth of nothing into the mix.


----------



## Jon (Oct 9, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Awards are given for achievements, not promises.

I promise to cure cancer. Can I have a Nobel prize too?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 9, 2009)

Jon said:


> Awards are given for achievements, not promises.
> 
> I promise to cure cancer. Can I have a Nobel prize too?



Yes You Can


----------



## garyd (Oct 9, 2009)

Dropping bombs on people is an act of war by anyone's definition. Historically cease fires don't end wars they merely stop the shooting as long as all conmcerned obey the protocols set forth in the ceasefire. Saddam never really did hence by the time Bush was elected the ceasefire had been for all practical purposes a dead letter for more than 2 years.


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 9, 2009)

Who did Saddam drop bombs on?  I guess I missed that...NO WONDER WE INVADED THAT COUNTRY!


----------



## Oddball (Oct 9, 2009)

Zona said:


> Did you all hear, Obama won something today?


Yeah.......He was given what boils down to a high-dollar participant trophy.


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Did you all hear, Obama won something today?
> ...



The unsuccessful are always jealous of the successful.

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize and he deserved it.

He has completely changed the world political climate.


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



so you've gone from playing the role of lewinsky to playing the role of Michelle Obama, eh cum guzzler?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


you are a fucking idiot if you actually believe that load of shit you just piled


----------



## elvis (Oct 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



He's a fucking idiot whether he believes it or not.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


I'd say nobody could be this incomprehensibly stupid and blindly sycophantic, but now know better since encountering you.

The vote to give Boyking this million dollar sop came less than two weeks into his adminstration...Barely enough time for him to change his socks, let alone the entire world's political climate....Fool.


----------



## Chris (Oct 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



He changed the world's political climate the moment he took office.

Thank God!

Bush almost destroyed America.

I enjoy you insults by the way. They show that you have no facts.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


the vote was recent, but the nomination came in within 12 days of him taking office


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


again showing you are full of shit but dumping yet another massive steaming load


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




Yeah you may want to neg rep Dude if he keeps it up.  Oh wait you can't do that, can you fuckstain?


----------



## concept (Oct 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


This Chris guy reminds me of Flakey Foont. Remember that guy?

A koolaid swilling lib extraordinaire. Nothing could faze him.


----------



## oreo (Oct 10, 2009)

ba1614 said:


> Congrats to him, that is indeed a great honor.
> 
> Seems awful premature to me though, I guess they like America taking blame for everything.




 *It's kind of like being awarded the Heisman trophy before you've ever played a game--*:


Let's face it though--this Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than political manuvering.
*PRESIDENT OBAMA--if he were smart--should have turned down this award.*

Because now--*he has put himself between a rock & a hard spot regarding more troops to Afganistan as his generals are requesting.*  If he doesn't send them--he will be taken down & ridiculed for not sending them because he accepted the Nobel Piece Prize.

_If he didn't accept it--no one could use that against him should he send or not send more troops to Afganistan._


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> The latest...Obama "curbed the spread of nuclear weapons"



Only in the United States.

He also is all for peaceful nuclear energy in Iran....but not in the U.S.

Funny how these libs rational tends to backfire on them.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



He got the award for hope and change.

First time they've given the award for an image, false though it may be.

They hope his intentions become a reality. 

Course that reality is you and me being under the UN's thumb.


----------



## Jon (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bush almost destroyed America.



Yes, and in nine months, Obama has done nothing to change that. All he has done is change the way the world views our President, not our country. Instead of a sniveling idiot going balls out in a war on terror, we have a lapdog begging for people to be nice. Neither strategy works. One promotes terror, the other doesn't do enough to discourage it.

Obama's biggest achievement in office is that he is NOT Bush. McCain and Hillary had that attribute, too, but they would have actually been proactive in change.

I also find it ironic that he is given a peace prize, yet he can't even create peace within his own party, much less his own nation. Continue to laud him with your praises, sheep. It will be that much more joyful when the world finally sees him for what he is: a man of too many words and too few actions. When he hits rock bottom (which won't take long, he's already on a crash course to get there), he'll have his fanboys like you to soften his blow. But that means you get crushed all the more. You deserve it for being that fucking stupid.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Reading from a TelePrompter hasn't changed the rest of the world's attitude...*he's just made us look like suckers*. Reading speeches that someone else wrote for him is not going to change the world. The world is getting wise to this phony baloney ignoramus. The IOC told us as much. They couldn't be persuaded by a disingenuous egomaniac with narcissistic tendencies. 

If Obama is surprised by this then I'm David Letterman. ABC is reported to have found out about this first. And his daughter the story goes told him about it along with announcing to him their dog's birthday. My how cute. I suspect this to be a phony attempt at making him look like a good father. Like his life is in some way normal.

So Obama's White House had such bad intel that a news network found out about this before he did.....and we're supposed to believe this crap? I would believe it if it wasn't for his constant need for attention and the simple fact that he felt he needed something to pull him back up from the disgrace and humiliation he received from his Olympics debacle.

Also I think it's funny how you think Bush almost destroyed America and you fail to realize that Obama and his handlers are presently going about accomplishing that very goal.


----------



## Sidestreamer (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> what the fuck has he done to promote peace?
> 
> ...



He was not Bush.

I think this award was more of a finger to the previous administration and a "thank you" to America for superficially changing course than it was an actual peace prize.

Not the right way to use the award, in my opinion.


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...




I'd say this is political compensation for the failed Olympic bid.  Of course, none of us will ever know because this is the most *opaque* white house since Nixon!


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Sidestreamer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> ...


sort of devalues the prize, doesnt it


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> ...



To some peace only means the lack of conflict.

To them peace and freedom don't go hand in hand.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


naw, it doesnt have anything to do with the Olympic bid


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > You have no idea how Liberals in Washington operate.
> ...



Not going in is an option but not a wise one since we were already engaged and had been constistently since Desert Storm.

Funny how you would mention Noriega. Obama's White House legal council defended him during his trial. Obama's Attorney General worked out a deal to pardon a bunch of terrorists while working for Clinton. He also worked out a deal to snatch Elian Gonzalas from his relatives in Miami and give him back to Castro. So the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree where Obama and his corrupt cronies are concerned.


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Here's another option:  Bring all of our soldiers from abroad back to the US except maybe embassy security.  Not just war fighters but All of those that are "protecting" our "allies."  Just bring 'em all back here.  Of course, let the countries where they are know what we're doing, so that they can adjust their infrastructure accordingly.  After their back here, we can dedicate them to defending our borders.  Then, if Europe or East Asia or South America wants protection, they can use their own military or hire mercenaries.  Why the fuck are we responsible for the security of the whole world at our own expense?  Does that make any sense?  Of course, not much of anything really makes sense anymore...


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > That's a bogus argument.
> ...



As long as Obama keeps talking smack about this country we will never improve our image. How are we supposed to look good when he keeps reminding everyone how fucked up we are. And when it comes to Bush...our press and his political opponents are mostly responsible for that. It's impossible for a politician to look good when the press repeats every falsehood and exaggeration they make.



> Who has he hooked up with? How is he not defending your interests?



Our interests are a strong dollar and a strong military....both of which he has weakened since becoming POTUS.



> The value of the dollar going down will mean you pay off your debt quicker and maybe even increase export-related jobs.



You need to take some classes on economics. A weak dollar only helps when it comes to foreign investors and selling of our products overseas. Buying American products is more of a bargain. However when you're constantly borrowing from other countries you also have to pay interest and with the shrinking dollar also comes inflation and higher interest rates. As a result it takes more dollars to pay off the debt. 





> America, IMO, starting going downhill when Bush was elected. I even hoped McCain would be elected because
> 1) I foresaw all the neocons bitching about how the Bush meltdown was really caused by Obama (have I been wrong)
> 2) Four years was not enough time for a Dem to fix the problem, so at least McCain would put his finger in the dike but probably getting voted out in 2012. Still feel that way.




You've fallen for a media generated image that is as false as the one they are generating in support of Obama. What's good is bad and what's bad is good. 

You can't recognize the difference because you're not allowed to see the truth.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > He was nominated  back in February .Days after taking office
> ...



Funny how the economy was churning on all cylinders till Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid took control of congress. 2007 was the year of the housing collapse.....the year the Dems took control of congress. Tightening of lending practices by the federal government led to the collapse. Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd oversaw that debacle.

But of course everyone blamed it on Bush.....even though it's not his job. 


Mayors and Governors are responsible for disaster relief in their cities and states.
They blamed Katrina on Bush....even though it's not his job ether. 

And Bush was blamed for Obama's Olympic fuck up too. 

Anyone can see the pattern.....except Liberals.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> And a diplomatic approach to world crisis as opposed to shoot first and look for WMDs later may just help America lead the world rather than threaten it.



We tried diplomacy for about a decade with Saddam and nothing seemed to work.

Maybe you should go back and read about it rather then trying to oversimplify the situation.


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > And a diplomatic approach to world crisis as opposed to shoot first and look for WMDs later may just help America lead the world rather than threaten it.
> ...



C'mon guys!  Let's just wait for the Ayatollah to "come out of his shell" and talk to us!  It's garbage.  

Iran is not going to negotiate until they have the bomb.  Can you blame them?  I'm not saying we should let them get the bomb, but let's look at it from their perspective.  They don't have any power now because they are outside of the nuclear club and they can have a real place at the negotiating table if they get the bomb.  Until then, as long as they feel they can safely do so, they *will* continue to develop their nuclear weapons capability.

By giving Obama the Nobel Prize Oslo is rewarding his ignorance to this *fact*.  Of course if I'm wrong, then Obama will get a second term and a second Nobel Prize (and he'll actually deserve it this time) and all will be right with the world.  I hope I'm wrong because otherwise Iran probably gets the bomb and the world becomes a lot less safe.  On the other hand, I'd love to see the look on Obama's face when both Israel and Iran are reduced to ash-covered glass.  Snyde fucking panderer.  Enjoy your Nobel Pussy Prize!


----------



## Zona (Oct 10, 2009)

This is such a slap in the face to Bush and republicans.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 10, 2009)

Zona said:


> This is such a slap in the face to Bush and republicans.



I don't know about Bush and Republicans but those of us who claim no party think it is fucking hysterical. 

First time in my life that I've actually seen someone win an award for doing nothing. No wonder the latte liberals are happy - you guys make a doing nothing a way of life.


----------



## Sidestreamer (Oct 10, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > This is such a slap in the face to Bush and republicans.
> ...



Most liberals thought this was premature as did a lot of the press. Myself included.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 10, 2009)

Sidestreamer said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



If you check my post, I refer to the 'latte liberals' (ie those in the 'elite' - DC, Hollywood, etc) not libertards (the great unwashed, unemployed and unemployable that make up the base).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Sidestreamer said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Libtards = liberals

Libertards = libertarians


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 10, 2009)

Sidestreamer said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



On the second thought, was it really premature or they knew exactly what they were doing?

Europe in Obama recognized the guy who is willing to play by their rules, in other words, he's weak enough to bend over and suck it up to them. Twelve days in the office was enough time for them to realize that two-faced Obama is their guy.

Whoever see what the world is really like with a guy like Obama in the white house, will also understand why Bush was the way he was.


----------



## Qball (Oct 10, 2009)

> Whoever see what the world is really like with a guy like Obama in the white house, will also understand why Bush was the way he was.



It is interesting how prior to January 20, it was all about change. Now, we can't go one week without people defending Obama and the Democrats by saying, "well, Republicans/Bush did it too!" 

Funny how the more things change, the more they actually stay the same.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Sidestreamer said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




Ah yes, those great unwashed, unemployed and unemployable libertards. Blue collar liberals like myself. Of course, I did have one minor job last year, but I only managed to crack very low six figure earned income, so it is just as if I did not work at all, correct? 

Cali, you, and the rest here, are a so damned stupid with your stereotypes.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 10, 2009)

Ame®icano;1599864 said:
			
		

> Sidestreamer said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I dont know why  people think he was nominated after he took office, He was probably nominated back in Nov  if not before . It was clear he was going to weaken America as much as possible, suck up to muslims and hate the right people.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2009)

Qball said:


> > Whoever see what the world is really like with a guy like Obama in the white house, will also understand why Bush was the way he was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny how the airways are absolutely full of million dollar ads against the upcoming changes. 

First, you rail, scream, froth at the mouth, and generally piss your pants about the changes that are being made. 

Then you stand and loudly scream that there are no changes. 

You fellows are coming across as a lowbrow comedy act. Voting in 2010 will reflect that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Ame®icano;1599864 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And, worst of all, become a successful President that the American people admire.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 10, 2009)

Change is meaningless without direction. People who protest Obama are protesting the direction of the change. Many of his policies are exactly the same as Bushs' yet no one protests them anymore. See the difference ?


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1599864 said:
> ...



Could you please list some of his successes?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1599864 said:
> ...


No one admires a pandering coward except our enemies .


----------



## Qball (Oct 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > > Whoever see what the world is really like with a guy like Obama in the white house, will also understand why Bush was the way he was.
> ...



Describing us as screaming, foaming at the mouth pants-wetters at the notion of "change"? _That's_ comedy.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 10, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.
> ...



Why?  Obama didn't give the award to himself.

He stated he thinks he didn't do anything to deserve it, and said he will try to excel in the future to live up to the award.

If anything, the global opinion of the Nobel Prize should decline a few points.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 10, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



a few points-----???  How turn into a worthless piece of junk.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 10, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I dont know why  people think he was nominated after he took office, He was probably nominated back in Nov  if not before . It was clear he was going to weaken America as much as possible, suck up to muslims and hate the right people.



So then I guess there must have been a bunch of terrorist attacks since Obama took office then?

Hmmm, guess not...

I guess he must be letting terrorists slip through his fingers?

Nope, looks like he's on top of that too.

Perhaps some rogue nation has invaded someone else?  Has Iraq gone to pieces?  Perhaps he's lessened our troop presence in Afghanistan?

No, looks like that didn't happen either.

Did he lessen security on ports?  I haven't seen any evidence of that.

So, tell us, *what evidence do you have that Obama has "weakened" America in any way?*

Please, be specific.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 10, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



Well, we pretty much knew the _Peace Prize _was garbage when Hitler received it.

At least the other Nobel Prizes actually mean something.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 10, 2009)

Congratulations President Barack Obama


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 10, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Congratulations President Barack Obama



huh?  Did he do something ?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 10, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations President Barack Obama
> ...



He walked and chewed gum at the same time.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 10, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Awesome--U da man Barry !!!!


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 10, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...




He also picked out a dog!


----------



## Qball (Oct 10, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



That's nothing compared to that time when he said some stuff!


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 10, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Well, we pretty much knew the _Peace Prize _was garbage when Hitler received it.
> 
> At least the other Nobel Prizes actually mean something.


What year was that?


----------



## Maple (Oct 10, 2009)

Qball said:


> rubberhead said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



You mean when he read what he said from the teleprompter.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > None of which has been changed under Obama.
> ...



The reason Obama was elected is because he used false pretenses and made false promises that he would get us out knowing full well he wouldn't nor couldn't.


----------



## Maple (Oct 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1599864 said:
> ...



Oh yeah, we admire him, along with Yasser Arafat another Noble peace prize winner.

Successful President?????????????? How so? Unemployment will shortly be above 10%, when he promised it would not go above 8% if the no stimulus stimulus bill was signed before anyone had a chance to read it. Remember, I will sign no bills with earmarks, he signed the 450 billion omnibus bill with 9,000 earmarks. Remember, no lobbyists in my term, yeah sureeeee!!!!! Remember, my administration will be the most transperent ever statement, yet they signed the no stimulus stimulus bill before they read it and then found out a week later that Chris Dodd had wrote in bonuses for the failed AIG exects and feigned outrage over this. Now they are attempting to pass legislation on health care 6% of our economy which will effect each and every one of us and they do not want to post it on the internet for all to see. NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL REAL TRANSPERENCY. 

He's a ONE TERM President as he has already given any opponents enough amunition to toast him in his re-election bid.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.
> ...



And this farce changes that popular opinion?


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 10, 2009)

Someone in one of the earlier threads has mentioned  that President  Obama's Senate record  was a good reason for  his being awarded the  Noble Prize, rather than perhaps the  12 or so days he was in office prior to his  nomination.  

Just thought you might like to see  President Obama's Senate Record;

Barack Obama missed 314 (24%) of 1300 votes since Jan 6, 2005. The graph to the left shows the number of missed votes over time.

Barack Obama has sponsored 121 bills since Jan 24, 2005 of which 115 haven't made it out of committee and 3 were successfully enacted. Obama has co-sponsored 506 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Obama and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.) 

Barack Obama - GovTrack.us

Hardly a congressional record one would  call worthy of   Nobel prize, especially considering the fact he spent most of the last year of his term as a Senator running for president rather than actually being a Senator. So perhaps this  Nobel prize has less to do with President Obama  and more to do with being happy that George Bush is no longer president?


----------



## Qball (Oct 10, 2009)

Besides the obligatory acts of bipartisanship, Obama's time as a Senator consisted of him essentially not legislating on anything so he could run for President as a post-partisan outsider.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



It shouldn't change your opinion about him. 

It shouldn't make you think he's even more wonderful or less wonderful.

However, I wonder if your opinion of him would change if he's lying about not knowing this was coming.

Just saying......


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 10, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know why  people think he was nominated after he took office, He was probably nominated back in Nov  if not before . It was clear he was going to weaken America as much as possible, suck up to muslims and hate the right people.
> ...


Obamas has weaken or position in the the world  and is proving  the USA to be a toothless  enemy and a treacherous friend and an unreliable investment.
Unsound financial policies 
Dropping the Missile shield
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cJaiVjS5kQ&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - America Toothless As An Enemy, Treacherous As A Friend.[/ame]

Obama 
That is going to involve some elements of border security because we&#8217;ve got to make our borders more secure. We can&#8217;t just have hundreds of thousands of people coming into the country without knowing who they are.

Plan to Erect More Border Fencing Killed

It would be rude to  continue and put  further evidence at this time


----------



## California Girl (Oct 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Someone in one of the earlier threads has mentioned  that President  Obama's Senate record  was a good reason for  his being awarded the  Noble Prize, rather than perhaps the  12 or so days he was in office prior to his  nomination.
> 
> Just thought you might like to see  President Obama's Senate Record;
> 
> ...



These were some of the very many reasons that I did not vote for him. I got his voting record during the primaries and was tempted to double check it because it sucked so bad. The problem that I had in the early days was that the pretty words were not backed up by a voting record of any substance. Now, I am relieved that I didn't vote for him.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU]YouTube - Obama: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwKZkmJFDF8]YouTube - Obama fundamentally changing america 1[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oeqXqveDK8]YouTube - Obama fundamentally changing america 2[/ame]


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 10, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




No he didn't, Teddy gave them Bo the dog.

Barry _said _they would rescue one from a shelter. . .


----------



## Zona (Oct 10, 2009)

By the way, in the amount of time obama has been in office, he has kept us safer than Bush did during that same amount of time.

Obama kept us safer from terrorists longer than bush did.  lol


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



Iraq was a threat. Saddam wanted to be a proxy for every terrorist group in the world. He wanted to do what Iran is currently doing, provide weapons to our enemies and provide training. He wanted to provide facilities along with medical treatment after attacks. He also wanted to do what Iran is doing, build nukes.

I really wish some people would wake up. I suppose now that Obama is POTUS the threat is gone. Now the biggest threat according the mainstream media is H1N1.

I think people feel threatened by whatever the media focuses on. Spinach, tomatoes, Bird flue, whatever they feel we should fear at the moment. How does it feel to be manipulated?


----------



## Gunny (Oct 10, 2009)

All you have to do to find noobies on this board is look and see who is actually bothering to try using fact, logic and reason responding to chrissy and old rocks.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> All you have to do to find noobies on this board is look and see who is actually bothering to try using fact, logic and reason responding to chrissy and old rocks.



Perhaps you could do a forum "welcome wagon" for newbies that could include a hamper of 'posters who can't tell fact from fiction and make shit up'?


----------



## Gunny (Oct 10, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > All you have to do to find noobies on this board is look and see who is actually bothering to try using fact, logic and reason responding to chrissy and old rocks.
> ...





Nice.


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Oct 10, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The poster actually has a point worthy of a better response than that.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Zona said:


> This is such a slap in the face to Bush and republicans.



No, you dumbfuck.  It's a slap in the face to every nominee who didn't win the prize this year.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> All you have to do to find noobies on this board is look and see who is actually bothering to try using fact, logic and reason responding to chrissy and old rocks.



ROFLMAO.  That is the most logical, reasonable, and factual thing anyone has said on the board this week.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > This is such a slap in the face to Bush and republicans.
> ...



Getting an award for Deepthroating the leaders of any and every nation that would allow him to is a slap in the face to Bush?  

Ridiculous.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



I think when Obama bowed to the saudis, he was really trying to do something else, but the Saudis refused him.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



The only reason he would deserve it is if they give awards to anyone who discourages Americans from being successful.

An award for a POTUS who's policies discourage success.

I think you have identified their rationale.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know why  people think he was nominated after he took office, He was probably nominated back in Nov  if not before . It was clear he was going to weaken America as much as possible, suck up to muslims and hate the right people.
> ...


he inherited that security


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Zona said:


> This is such a slap in the face to Bush and republicans.



No, its not.

Its a slap in the face to past winners of the NPP.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 10, 2009)

Ame®icano;1599897 said:
			
		

> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



he won a nobel peace prize.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 10, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Well, we pretty much knew the _Peace Prize _was garbage when Hitler received it.
> ...



1945, if peace prize means a cyanide capsule or a bullet or both.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



You might want to research the history of the NPP before, ya know, making things up to try and bolster your point of view. It basically turns your argument to garbage, and makes you look like a fool.

The peace prize was came close to being junk when Arafat won it, and _now_ means absolutely nothing that Obama won it for a good PR campaign and nothing more.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Zona said:


> By the way, in the amount of time obama has been in office, he has kept us safer than Bush did during that same amount of time.
> 
> Obama kept us safer from terrorists longer than bush did.  lol


he inherited that


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > This is such a slap in the face to Bush and republicans.
> ...



It would only be a slap in the face to Republicans if Obama had genuinely done something worthy of the award.

On the other hand, most of the world's press is saying that he got the award for not being Bush, so that actually does make it a slap in the face to Dubya who, let's face it, was a poor President.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Zona said:


> By the way, in the amount of time obama has been in office, he has kept us safer than Bush did during that same amount of time.
> 
> Obama kept us safer from terrorists longer than bush did.  lol



Critical thinking and you. Never shall the two cross paths.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



dammit, obama was so confused when he had to apply another technique to please our head-momma. just when he had mastered deep-throating. but he did it well. and obama is now merkel's bitch, hey that's how politics work. we euro-weenies laugh at you weaklings, electing this groveller, oh, we were so afraid of this decisive decider guy, who was a war president, and like was totally manly n'shit.  we euro-weenies were shaking in our hot pink boots while slurping down dictator jizz.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Ame®icano;1599897 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ROFL
so the fact that he was awarded the prize is a valid reason for him being awarded the prize


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Zona said:


> By the way, in the amount of time obama has been in office, he has kept us safer than Bush did during that same amount of time.
> 
> Obama kept us safer from terrorists longer than bush did.  lol



Give it time.

It takes time for a President to disable all of the protections Bush put in place.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1599897 said:
> ...



in german a prise is the bounty of a pirate, or any seized ship in war time.

with my response i was literally following the request to list some of his successes.

i love circular reasoning, this board is a good hunting ground for this.

other than that, i made my opinion of this selection known at the start of the thread, have moved on, and now am fully committed to meta-comments.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1599897 said:
> ...


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Of course W was a piss poor president. This is no reason to go and give his successor a prestigious award for simply not being the previous guy.

Absolutely ridiculous. And like I said, a slap in the face to previous winners.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1599897 said:
> ...



LK is indulging in a little dry and wry humor. He's not obtuse to the circular reasoning.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



He post was an old worn out talking point. 

It's not an orignal idea. 

Which is why my post fit.

On the other hand where your post is concerned it reminds me of the old saying "opinions are like assholes....."


----------



## Gunny (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



And I'm a big one.  Your point?  You posted a comment to which you only had a personal attack as  response.  If you're so damned enlightened, prove it.  If you want to be a dick, I guarantee you I'm a bigger one than you and it just comes natural to me.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



LMAO...I'm not gonna argue with you about who is a bigger asshole or a bigger dick. 

I don't think saying your opinion is bullshit is exactly an attack. I think's it's more a statement of my opinion which you seem to have proved is a very real possibility.

I think a personal attack is more like this....You suck. That is a personal attack. 

Just saying your opinions aren't worth paying attention to because they're bogus isn't quite that personal.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



once again, i don't get it. this MUST be about me.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Good boy.  It is.  More precisely, it's about your circular thinking, actually.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 10, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



But slurp it down you did.

But, as you say, nothing to worry about now that we elected Neville Chamberlain Prime ...errr... President.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



A threat to us?  How?



> Saddam wanted to be a proxy for every terrorist group in the world.



Can you support that extremely broad claim?  For example - it was known that Saddam turned down collaboration with Al Queda who WAS and REMAINS a threat to us.



> He wanted to do what Iran is currently doing, provide weapons to our enemies and provide training.



"Wanted" is a long step from "doing" particularly given the sanctions.  If that were sufficient cause for war we'd be embroiled in dozens of wars around the world.



> He wanted to *provide facilities along with medical treatment after attacks*.



I am not sure I understand what is bad about that, particularly given that in Israel's last attack on the Palestinians they refused to allow medical relief in for some time.  Medical treatment is a humanitarian issue, not a terrorist issue.



> He also wanted to do what Iran is doing, build nukes.



So does NK, so does Burma, so do dozens of other countries.  So we should invade them and start a war?



> I really wish some people would wake up. I suppose now that Obama is POTUS the threat is gone.



Or maybe the threat is just more narrowly focused being that we are spread way too thin to be starting unneccessary wars that put more American lives at risk around the world.



> Now the biggest threat according the mainstream media is H1N1.
> 
> I think people feel threatened by whatever the media focuses on. Spinach, tomatoes, Bird flue, whatever they feel we should fear at the moment. How does it feel to be manipulated?



How DOES it feel, my friend?


----------



## Gunny (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Did you borrow Barrack's teleprompter for that circle-jerk, or what?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



circular thinking, is this like thinking about circles or something, please enlighten me.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...




yeah we did slurp down every droplet that missed the US mouth.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Arafat, jimmah and Barry, united yet again!


 
Not to mention OwlGore who got it last year...and of course you know that Bill Clinton has to be steaming right about now...


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

651 posts later, Barack Obama is still going to get the Nobel Peace Prize. It hurts, doesn't it rabid right? 

Personally, I find this much bitching over something that affects none of us to be a bit sad.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> A threat to us?  How?



I'm just listening to the experts on the ground. You on the other hand are listening to the media and Democrats trying to use war as a way to take back power.





> Can you support that extremely broad claim?  For example - it was known that Saddam turned down collaboration with Al Queda who WAS and REMAINS a threat to us.



I don't think you have any idea what Saddam was up to and even if it came to light I'm almost certain you'll deny it.



> "Wanted" is a long step from "doing" particularly given the sanctions.  If that were sufficient cause for war we'd be embroiled in dozens of wars around the world.



They give awards now for wanting to do things. Saddam was extremely open about his plans. Problem being somebody actually called his bluff and he paid the ultimate price for it.




> I am not sure I understand what is bad about that, particularly given that in Israel's last attack on the Palestinians they refused to allow medical relief in for some time.  Medical treatment is a humanitarian issue, not a terrorist issue.



I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue being discussed. Are you trying to change the subject now?




> So does NK, so does Burma, so do dozens of other countries.  So we should invade them and start a war?



I think we draw the line when they openly broadcast the the world that they fully intend on using them to destroy another country once they get them.



> Or maybe the threat is just more narrowly focused being that we are spread way too thin to be starting unneccessary wars that put more American lives at risk around the world.



I think the threat is being almost totally ignored. But you're welcome to your opinions.....wrong as they may be.


> How DOES it feel, my friend?



I'm not the one going around listening the a media, a Democrat controlled congress, and President that has been proven numerous times to be lying to us. Willful ignorance is not much of a defense. Once I find out I've been lied to I find it hard to believe the source anymore....however you depend on the same sources for your evidence even though they continue to mislead you. This is because your belief in what is right and what is wrong is somewhat slanted.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I'm able to use my own mind.

Been to many circle-jerks lately?

My understanding is it takes more then one person for one of those. 

Maybe you can enlighten me on how you get a successful circle-jerk going by yourself.


----------



## trobinett (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



He must of Gunny, does he win some sort of award?


----------



## Huh? (Oct 10, 2009)

Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

I just got done reading about it...seems some aren't happy about it...

"Critics -- some in parts of the Arab and Muslim world -- called the committee decision premature."

----

"Afghanistan's Taliban mocked the award, saying Obama should get a Nobel prize for violence instead.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said it was absurd to give a peace award to a man who had sent 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to escalate a war."


Oh my, and I've been hearing many complain that he hasn't done anything about A-stain...

---------

"The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and opposes a peace treaty with Israel, said the award was premature at best."


Damn, Hamas doesn't like it either...hmmmm...I wonder, should I bother reading this thread and discover who else is in agreement with the Taliban and Hamas on this?

BWAAAHAHAHAfuckingHA


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Huh? said:


> Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
> 
> I just got done reading about it...seems some aren't happy about it...
> 
> ...



I bet some of those terrorists also think that 2+2=4.  So do I.



The logic of the left on display.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> 651 posts later, Barack Obama is still going to get the Nobel Peace Prize. It hurts, doesn't it rabid right?
> 
> Personally, I find this much bitching over something that affects none of us to be a bit sad.



I don't think you have any idea what this is going to affect.

I think it will force Obama to make a bad decision in Afghanistan.

He's gonna try to live up to this bogus prize by becoming even more of a pacifist then he already is.

It will also make him think he's doing the right thing by screwing up our economy. 

Another thing it is causing is a series of Presidential directives coming down the pike that affects the lives of every DOD employee, everything from whom you can sleep with, to what kind of things you can openly discuss while at work. 

This will make him feel he's on the right track.....that is if the award wasn't bought and paid for by George Soros or other Obama benefactors.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> I bet some of those terrorists also think that 2+2=4.  So do I. The logic of the left on display.



The fact you characterize an entire side by one person on this speaks volumes of your intelligence or rather lack there of.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I bet some of those terrorists also think that 2+2=4.  So do I. The logic of the left on display.
> ...


The fact that I didn't use the word 'all' nor 'entire' speaks volumes for your lack of reading skills.....yet again.

But I can understand your taking it personally.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I don't think you have any idea what this is going to affect.
> 
> I think it will force Obama to make a bad decision in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



So all you did was post a bunch of conspiracies on your part. From top to bottom, all you posted was bullshit.

He didn't even say he felt he was worthy of the award I believe it was but he felt humbled.

As to address your points:

1.) We should leave Afghanistan, that desert wasteland is going to provide no victory. The Afghanistan people who are "on our side" are already installing a oppressive Government in place that will either get worse or fall apart when we leave.

2.) The economy has nothing to do with this, non-point and bullshit on your part.

3.) What the fuck is that third point even come from? Outside of your ass that is. Complete bullshit.

4.) You seriously think George Soros bought off the Nobel Prize voters? What a fucking hack you are. 

Just get the fuck out of this thread, you've embarrassed yourself in that one post alone so much as is.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I bet some of those terrorists also think that 2+2=4. So do I. The logic of the left on display.
> ...


 
So are you one of those that is out there accusing those of us whom disagree with the decision of the NOBEL Committee of being in collusion with Jhihadist groups because we too agree with their asessment?


----------



## Huh? (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Huh? said:
> 
> 
> > Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
> ...



Lol, Sigh, do you have a little pop-up or something that informs you of every time I post?

Funny thing is, you mentioned something about ignoring my bullshit and then can't seem to even let the dust settle before responding...you crack me up...

Hey, how about that, "Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said it was absurd to give a peace award to a man *who had sent 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to escalate a war.*"???

Rhetorical question...wouldn't want to side track another valuable thread so this will be my last response to you in this one as well...have a great day.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



"the logic of the left". does not need qualifiers like "all" or "entire". do you need a venn diagram, logic master?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> The fact that I didn't use the word 'all' nor 'entire' speaks volumes for your lack of reading skills.....yet again.
> 
> But I can understand your taking it personally.



When you say "The left" you are saying "everyone on the Left." So it speaks volumes for your lack of knowledge on what you're even saying.

The Left is a general term. For example:

The Right hates White People. Now when I say that, am I referring to one person? No. I'm referring to an entire side.

My god your ignorance is astounding.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> So are you one of those that is out there accusing those of us whom disagree with the decision of the NOBEL Committee of being in collusion with Jhihadist groups because we too agree with their asessment?



No, I think it's fucking stupid. Just like I think it's fucking stupid when certain people on the right side on this board say Obama is a communist because Hugo Chavez likes the fact that Bush is no longer in office. It's misleading, dishonest, and fucking stupid. AND just like I think it's fucking stupid the amount of whining and bitching over this.

My god, if some of you would bitch this much about the real issues, some shit might actually get done.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > 651 posts later, Barack Obama is still going to get the Nobel Peace Prize. It hurts, doesn't it rabid right?
> ...


 
Exactly. Obama has effectively been put in a "Straightjacket"...for now he MUST live up to the expectations of the _AWARD..._


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that I didn't use the word 'all' nor 'entire' speaks volumes for your lack of reading skills.....yet again.
> ...


No, Dogbert.  When I say "the left" I am saying "the left".

You can imagine (or hallucinate) whatever you wish, but I say what I mean, irrespective of any unsolicited edits.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > So are you one of those that is out there accusing those of us whom disagree with the decision of the NOBEL Committee of being in collusion with Jhihadist groups because we too agree with their asessment?
> ...



Calling him communist has to do something with his actions. Don't you think?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Exactly. Obama has effectively been put in a "Straightjacket"...for now he MUST live up to the expectations of the _AWARD..._



According to who? The only person who thinks that is those who are delusional enough to put so much weight into this award. Do you seriously think a Nobel Prize is going to affect Barack Obama that much? Are you that much of a partisan hack?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> No, Dogbert.  When I say "the left" I am saying "the left".
> 
> You can imagine (or hallucinate) whatever you wish, but I say what I mean, irrespective of any unsolicited edits.



It's official, you truly are that dumb.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Ame®icano;1600906 said:
			
		

> Calling him communist has to do something with his actions. Don't you think?



No, calling him a communist because a certain people doesn't hate him was my point. You're being a hack, stop doing so.


----------



## Againsheila (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> what the fuck has he done to promote peace?
> 
> ...



Well, he dipped his head to the Queen of England and he bowed deeply to the King of Saudi Arabia....kowtowing to the enemy is a real good way to establish peace.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > So are you one of those that is out there accusing those of us whom disagree with the decision of the NOBEL Committee of being in collusion with Jhihadist groups because we too agree with their asessment?
> ...


 
Obama is KNOWN to habor friendships with these sorts of people. It's IN his history. We know him by the comapny he keeps. And just look what he is doing to destroy this Republic?

Yes ye shall be known by the company ye keep. I don't think such comparisons are unfounded.

How could Obama win such a prize when all he has done but widened the GAP to facilitate what he and the Statists in Congress have proposed to do?

Obama has waged WAR with the people in his own country by his actions. Do you suppose that this is why there are those that see the AWARD as phoney, and may as well have slammed the last nail in the coffin of that 'Award'?

It's _phoney_.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Ame®icano;1600906 said:
			
		

> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


  Bravo!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1600921-post675.html


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Ame®icano;1600906 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't care if Chavez like him, or Castro, or Ghadafi... 

It's about what he does to American people.

Check out what's the first thing communists did in Russia after October Revolution. Check what communists did in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Yougoslavia, Hungary...

If you don't know what they did, come back to me and I'll explain.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > No, Dogbert.  When I say "the left" I am saying "the left".
> ...


I'm convinced you didn't even understand anything I said.

ThinkProgess can't do your thinking for you on this one, kid.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



yer post is phony. and you are phony.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you have any idea what this is going to affect.
> ...



Your last sentence pretty much summed up what kind of person you are.....as a result I need not respond to the rest of your worthless post.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


 
Explain. Obama has known ties to these types of people. There is nothing PHONEY of what I posted.

Either explain or shut up.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Your last sentence pretty much summed up what kind of person you are.....as a result I need not respond to the rest of your worthless post.



It's not a summary of the kind of person I am. It's a summary of how I feel about stupid posts such as those. You have no respect for things like honesty and truth. They're mere punchlines in your attempts to make half-ass conspiracy posts.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Ame®icano;1600929 said:
			
		

> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1600906 said:
> ...


 
Exactly.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Exactly.



Not exactly, I hear two arguments from people on the right.

1.) He's done nothing important.

2.) He has done actions that are turning into country into a Socialist country.

So which is it? And what is your reasoning? I don't want to hear bullshit conspiracy theories or assumptions. I want cold hard facts of reasoning of why BARACK OBAMA is trying to turn this country into a Socialist one. 

Ready, Set, Go.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Your last sentence pretty much summed up what kind of person you are.....as a result I need not respond to the rest of your worthless post.
> ...


 

What's half-ass of his past/present associations? What he is doing to his own people, and LACK of doing the correct things?

He's bringing this country down, and it's on purpose. Perhaps it could be said that the NOBEL Committee heard it, liked it, and he is cut of the same cloth as they are?

The NOBEL Prize is a JOKE.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> All you have to do to find noobies on this board is look and see who is actually bothering to try using fact, logic and reason responding to chrissy and old rocks.



Everyone has a passion about certain topics, especially when it comes to government. Everyone has a right to their opinion and their writing that opinion for others to read. Sometimes that passion overtakes the rights of others to argue that we learn things whether we like it or not. Most of us, at least I do, find ourselves truly engaged by someone who seems to know more about a subject. For some, that engagement is chance to learn something, for others is embarrassment.

Zona, Chris, Old Rocks and few others are in my opinion trolls who add nothing to either side. They don't reply to questions, they ignore the facts, they are avoiding everyone who aren't writing "their kinda message". When someone write the truth, they don't have anything to add. Their only purpose here is to mock with the possibility of sidetracking the reality of good sharing.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Give it time.
> 
> It takes time for a President to disable all of the protections Bush put in place.



I looked back and my god you're a fucktard. Obama is not disabling all of the "protections" that Bush put in place. He's continuing them!

I want some evidence of this. What exactly of Bush's "protections" has disabled. I want a list and links to go with it.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...


 
What had he DONE to Garner such a prize in the interest of 'PEACE' in 12 short days after his inauguration?

Ready? Set? GO!


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> What's half-ass of his past/present associations? What he is doing to his own people, and LACK of doing the correct things?
> 
> He's bringing this country down, and it's on purpose. Perhaps it could be said that the NOBEL Committee heard it, liked it, and he is cut of the same cloth as they are?
> 
> The NOBEL Prize is a JOKE.



Go read his post, then come back and tell me what half-ass of that post. You're a hack if you see nothing wrong with the post Mud made. You're not even bothering to read what I'm responding to.

I want evidence that he's bringing this country down and on purpose. You're a fucking hack if you truly believe that.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> What had he DONE to Garner such a prize in the interest of 'PEACE' in 12 short days after his inauguration?
> 
> Ready? Set? GO!



Alas Bitch Boy, I never said he was worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I have never said anything about whether he deserved or not. I just said the bitching about it was insane.

Also, you fail to realize that he was nominated in 12 days but the vote took place recently.

Now since I answered your bullshit attempts to try and discredit me, answer my questions or shut the fuck up.


----------



## mal (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...



I Think it's More what he's Pushing for...

In Practice, he's Done VERY Little... Considering that he has 3/3 Control and a Substantial Control at that, is Lack of Substance is Notable.

As to the Award, it's More about Nobel Slapping (43) than ANYTHING Barry has or hasn't Done.

So much so that even the Mainstream Media is Acknowledging it.



peace...


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Your last sentence pretty much summed up what kind of person you are.....as a result I need not respond to the rest of your worthless post.
> ...



Your despicable post speaks volumes about you. 

I need not say anymore.


----------



## Liability (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> 651 posts later, Barack Obama is still going to get the Nobel Peace Prize. It hurts, doesn't it rabid right?
> 
> Personally, I find this much bitching over something that affects none of us to be a bit sad.



6000 posts from now, it will still be quite impossible to justify his receipt of that award on the basis of a single thing he has ever done.

I find this much genuflecting at the President over an award given without the possibility of valid justification to be quite amusing.


----------



## mal (Oct 10, 2009)

Liability said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > 651 posts later, Barack Obama is still going to get the Nobel Peace Prize. It hurts, doesn't it rabid right?
> ...



To Barry's Credit, he said he didn't Deserve it...

Liberals who Making MORE of this than the Slap and (43) that it is, are Delusional...



peace...


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Your despicable post speaks volumes about you.
> 
> I need not say anymore.



I answer your questions, you don't answer mine. Nice job hack.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



In the same sentence he claimed he was undeserving while he was describing himself as a transformational figure.

He just trying to snow us with his false modesty.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

This was given to Obama in response to Obama not being Bush. If that is not obvious, then people need to get a clue. Now, almost 700 posts later, the bitching continues for a award that affects none of us.

In fact, until a couple days ago, I bet few people on here even knew who was being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize this year. The faux outrage gets tiring after awhile.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> In the same sentence he claimed he was undeserving *while he was describing himself as a transformational figure.*
> 
> He just trying to snow us with his false modesty.



Link? Where in the same sentence did he say that? Was saying he was humble describing himself as a transformational figure?


----------



## mal (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I Think there's some Truth to that Claim... What the Transformation will be is what is at Question...



peace...


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Your despicable post speaks volumes about you.
> ...



After what you said you want me to be socialble enough to answer your mother fucken questions?


----------



## Liability (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> This was given to Obama in response to Obama not being Bush. If that is not obvious, then people need to get a clue. Now, almost 700 posts later, the bitching continues for a award that affects none of us.
> 
> In fact, until a couple days ago, I bet few people on here even knew who was being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize this year. The faux outrage gets tiring after awhile.



Not nearly as tiring as the false claim (shared by you) that there is any "outrage" at all, much less this alleged "false outrage."

I see no outrage.

I see commentary.  I see derision (justified).  But outrage?  Nope.

And nobody can justify the granting of such an award to this President on the basis of anything he has ever actually done.   That probably merits another mention since Obamaphile hacks like to just skip past that point.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> After what you said you want me to be socialble enough to answer your mother fucken questions?



Did I make you cry? Seriously, grow up and grow a pair if you're a man. This isn't a place where your stupid comments are going to be sheltered.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > In the same sentence he claimed he was undeserving *while he was describing himself as a transformational figure.*
> ...



Before I even consider answering that question, which is easy enough....I want an apology from you for your rude behavior.

Until then forget it.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


That won't happen.

And, he's a kid.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Liability said:


> Not nearly as tiring as the false claim (shared by you) that there is any "outrage" at all, much less this alleged "false outrage."
> 
> I see no outrage.
> 
> ...



Commentary doesn't last for 700+ posts you hack. 

This is outrage as it's best.

The thing is, this award affects none of us. So therefore, you have no reason to give a fuck about it. As previously mentioned, the fact you put so much weight into this award in the first place makes me question some things.

By the way, the award could of gone to plenty of other deserving people. Guess what? It didn't. I wanted The Dark Knight to win Best Movie of the Year but it didn't even get nominated. Did I bitch for weeks and cry on a message board about a award that didn't affect me like some of you people will probably be doing so? No. I shrugged and said well better luck next time.

The only people who have a right to be "outraged" really are the ones who lost.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Before I even consider answering that question, which is easy enough....I want an apology from you for your rude behavior.
> 
> Until then forget it.



Rude behavior? If you make stupid comments, I'm going to say so. If you refuse to answer my questions, you're dodging and being a hack.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> That won't happen.
> 
> And, he's a kid.



I'm not a kid and you have no room to talk there Si Modo.


----------



## Liability (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Not nearly as tiring as the false claim (shared by you) that there is any "outrage" at all, much less this alleged "false outrage."
> ...



Of course it does you lying twit.



Dogbert said:


> This is outrage as it's best.



No.  It's not outrage at all, you dishonest little twit.

You repeating your pointless little lie doesn't actually convert it into the truth.

There is still no outrage, ya hapless meaningless twit.

Did I mention that you are a twit?  That shouldn't go unmentioned.  You twit.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> *This was given to Obama in response to Obama not being Bush. *If that is not obvious, then people need to get a clue. Now, almost 700 posts later, the bitching continues for a award that affects none of us.
> 
> In fact, until a couple days ago, I bet few people on here even knew who was being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize this year. The faux outrage gets tiring after awhile.


 
But a FEW did? And I'd be willing to bet that the Bamster _did._ No proof...but it's part and parcel to whom he is, and It wouldn't suprise me that he _knew_ he was nominated after his_ immaculation._

_But I have to give credit where it is DUE..._

Just look at whom the NOBEL Committee has given the award to in recent years?

Bamster is in good Statist/Liberal Company...

And perhaps the Euro-Trash Statists themselves did give it to him for _NOT_ being George W. Bush. 

It's a sound theory, and one that further drives the final NAIL in their coffin for being a JOKE of an _'AWARD'_. Never mind that BUSH Liberated 50+ Million folks from the tryranny they were suffering  from the murderous philosophies of those that they were subject.

_NAH...couldn't be..._


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 10, 2009)

Forgive me here,  but after a day of this , the real shame of all this is that we are all actually debating  President Obama  having  received the  Nobel prize under what some would claim are less than notable  circumstances and those are not just  republicans making that claim, it's also democrats as well as the Daily Kos the last time I checked was  not a institution that anyone could see as bought and paid for by the GOP.  The real sad thing about all this is we are all here debating this Nobel prize that long ago lost it's luster when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat and then such notables as the IPCC, when we are all about to eat big tax sandwich all in the name of  non-exitant  healthcare reform.  So before all of you jump on the  "why are you here then" bandwagon, I'll save you the trouble and  state  this is the last comment I will make on President Obama's new trophy.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Liability said:


> No.  It's not outrage at all, you dishonest litle twit.
> 
> You repeating your pointless little lie doesn't actually convert it into the truth.
> 
> ...



It is outrage. People are truly angry over this, which is sad. Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true there Liability. I see more outrage and "commentary" on this non-issue than the real issues. Which is another thing that is plain sad.

You have made your "commentary" on this issue several times I'm sure, why does it bear repeating? Will something change if you keep repeating it? If you say 'Obama didn't deserve it' three times fast do you think he'll appear in your mirror or computer screen with a axe to kill you?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > That won't happen.
> ...


 I don't spend my time lying, backpeddling, and using logical fallacies over and over so perhaps I don't have room to talk on that practice; it's foreign to me.

Celebrate well when you can purchase alcohol legally in the USA.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> It's a sound theory, and one that further drives the final NAIL in their coffin for being a JOKE of an _'AWARD'_. Never mind that BUSH Liberated 50+ Million folks from the tryranny they were suffering  from the murderous philosophies of those that they were subject.
> 
> _NAH...couldn't be..._



If you call the people of Afghanistan and Iraq liberated then perhaps you won't mind going to live over there for a few years? Unless of course you feel you'll need the McCain treatment.


----------



## Liability (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No.  It's not outrage at all, you dishonest litle twit.
> ...



No.  It still isn't.  You can point to no actual anger, as you know.  So, you can stop with your lying, now, you silly little twit.

Come on.  It's funny.

Nobody gives a shit.  It denegrates any value the award might actually have -- as honors go -- to give it to a guy who hasn't actually done anything to merit it.

But they gave it to him anyway.  And it's funny.  The derisive comments are not anger.  They are justified derision.  Jokes.  Amusement.

And that's all this is worth.

You know it.  We all do.  Your faux claim of "outrage" will never fly because it's just you lying.  There is still no outrage.

Laughter?  Yep.  It's funny.  The punchline to a whole bunch of future jokes:  "President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing!"


----------



## mal (Oct 10, 2009)

Not where this goes...



peace...


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > It's a sound theory, and one that further drives the final NAIL in their coffin for being a JOKE of an _'AWARD'_. Never mind that BUSH Liberated 50+ Million folks from the tryranny they were suffering from the murderous philosophies of those that they were subject.
> ...


 

I'll follow your fucking LEAD...What's the _iteniary DogBoy?_


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No.  It's not outrage at all, you dishonest litle twit.
> ...



Saying it's outrage over and over does not make it any more true than the first time you told that lie.  Just keep saying that lie, we'll keep correcting you, then you can use use that idiotic reason that number of posts equate to outrage.

How completely idiotic your points are


----------



## mal (Oct 10, 2009)

What the!...



peace...


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Liability said:


> No.  It still isn't.  You can point to no actual anger, as you know.  So, you can stop with your lying, now, you silly little twit.
> 
> Come on.  It's funny.
> 
> ...



It's funny? You throwing out around personal insults along with plenty of others is anything but showing laughter. It's anger on some level. I'm sure when you heard this it pissed you off a bit.

By the way, the biggest irony in here is you obviously didn't pay attention in history class.

Why do you put so much weight into a award created by the inventor of Dynamite who only created these awards to save his legacy?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No.  It still isn't.  You can point to no actual anger, as you know.  So, you can stop with your lying, now, you silly little twit.
> ...


Sometimes folks can get a bit testy with ankle-biters like you.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Saying it's outrage over and over does not make it any more true than the first time you told that lie.  Just keep saying that lie, we'll keep correcting you, then you can use use that idiotic reason that number of posts equate to outrage.
> 
> How completely idiotic your points are



It is outrage. You and others are upset over this. Which is what I really don't get. I don't even think Obama deserved the award but I didn't bother to complain. Why? It doesn't affect me. None of the Nobel Prize Winners getting their awards affect me. You know what affects me though? Their work. If their work can improve mankind for the better, then that is great.

Did Obama's work thus far make him deserving of such a award? No.

Do I wish that perhaps one day he will? Of course. Because that will mean he had made this country better.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No. It still isn't. You can point to no actual anger, as you know. So, you can stop with your lying, now, you silly little twit.
> ...


 
I am going to FOLLOW YOUR LEAD...When are WE going to A'Stan DOGBOY?


----------



## Liability (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No.  It still isn't.  You can point to no actual anger, as you know.  So, you can stop with your lying, now, you silly little twit.
> ...



Yes.  Quite funny.  I might also suggest you get an adult to explain the concept of "derisive" laughter to you.  But that doesn't change the fact that there is no outrage.  It's funny.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Saying it's outrage over and over does not make it any more true than the first time you told that lie.  Just keep saying that lie, we'll keep correcting you, then you can use use that idiotic reason that number of posts equate to outrage.
> ...


You don't get it Dogbert.  Any outrage at this point is over annoying little ankle-biters.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> I am going to FOLLOW YOUR LEAD...When are WE going to A'Stan DOGBOY?



 Unlike you I don't think the Afghanistan or Iraq people are liberated. Whether we stay there for a year or a hundred years, they will not be "liberated."

The Government in Afghanistan is corrupt and oppressive already. The only way a country can be truly "liberated" in a situation like this if they did liberated themselves. Did you see France liberating us? No. We did ourselves. If France had done it and put themselves in charge here, would we not them as just another group trying to control us?

We did not liberate either country. We are better off leaving now before we go the way of the Soviet Union in terms of losses.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Liability said:


> It's funny? * * * *



Yes.  Quite funny.  I might also suggest you get an adult to explain the concept of "derisive" laughter to you.  But that doesn't change the fact that there is no outrage.  It's funny.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to ask you to stop taking my posts out of context. As for this whole outrage vs laughter stuff, whatever. Delude yourself if you care to. The fact you're continuing to respond to my point on this means you really don't want anyone thinking this is outrage. So again, whatever. Feel whatever makes you happy.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to FOLLOW YOUR LEAD...When are WE going to A'Stan DOGBOY?
> ...


 
In other words? *I* Fronted a direct challange to _*YOU*_ and you seem to want to creep OUT of it.

Figures. From now on? Talk to the _HAND_ DogBoy...


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I bet some of those terrorists also think that 2+2=4.  So do I. The logic of the left on display.
> ...



Well, the person he was responding to was doing the exact same thing. Whats good for the goose and all...


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> In other words? *I* Fronted a direct challange to _*YOU*_ and you seems to want to creep OUT of it.
> 
> Figures. From now on? Talk to the _HAND_ DogBoy...



What is your direct challenge? To go to Afghanistan? You're the one who seems to think they are liberated, not me. If you care to go die in the desert wasteland, feel free.

You are nothing but a partisan hack who is also arrogant. Do you think the fact you donate also makes you right always?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Well, the person he was responding to was doing the exact same thing. Whats good for the goose and all...



Except two wrongs don't make a right. Or is that outdated?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the person he was responding to was doing the exact same thing. Whats good for the goose and all...
> ...



Not outdated, but this is an MB. Different rules apply. When someone makes a dumb generalization, another dumb generalization is sometimes appropriate.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Not outdated, but this is an MB. Different rules apply. When someone makes a dumb generalization, another dumb generalization is sometimes appropriate.



Very true I suppose. Either way, two dumb generalizations and it doesn't bode well for the MB IQ.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > In other words? *I* Fronted a direct challange to _*YOU*_ and you seems to want to creep OUT of it.
> ...


 
Laugh it up...You proposed that I go there...while NOT willing to do the same?

Spare me DogBoy. You failed. You are now making excuses.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, those great unwashed, unemployed and unemployable libertards. Blue collar liberals like myself. Of course, I did have one minor job last year, but I only managed to crack very low six figure earned income, so it is just as if I did not work at all, correct?
> 
> Cali, you, and the rest here, are a so damned stupid with your stereotypes.



kinda like you are Rocks.....how many times have you called anyone who disagrees with you.....a Neo-con.....too many times to count......


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Not outdated, but this is an MB. Different rules apply. When someone makes a dumb generalization, another dumb generalization is sometimes appropriate.
> ...



All MB IQ's fall somewhere between Forrest Gump (dumb, but unintentionally profound at times) and Eminem (foul mouthed violent retard).


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Laugh it up...You proposed that I go there...while NOT willing to do the same?
> 
> Spare me DogBoy. You failed. You are now making excuses.



Yes, I did propose you go there. YOU feel that they have been liberated. Therefore YOU should feel that it is safe enough to go there. However, I do not feel that they have been liberated or that it is safe enough to go over there.

So why don't you go over there for a few years since you feel they are liberated.

I haven't failed or making excuses. We have different opinions on this, so why would I want to take the same action that yours should? 

Looks like donating to this board couldn't buy you what you needed most of all, common sense.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


I doubt that.  It's a diverse crowd here, though.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



I didn't say posters. I meant the MB as a whole. 

For every intelligent, good looking and debonair poster such as myself...there's a JenT, a Mal, a Chris and a Bass to water down the sterling qualities of us good people.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Laugh it up...You proposed that I go there...while NOT willing to do the same?
> ...


 

So in other words? YOU caved to your OWN proposal. Typical Lib Statist...say things  challange folks to do something they _themselves_ aren't willing to do.

Yeah...*I* know...I was IN the Military for a DECADE. And you, DOGBOY?


----------



## mal (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



You're Wasting your Time, T...



peace...


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> So in other words? YOU caved to your OWN proposal. Typical Lib Statist...say things  challange folks to do something they _themselves_ aren't willing to do.
> 
> Yeah...*I* know...I was IN the Military for a DECADE. And you, DOGBOY?



There you go with the dishonest once again. The proposal was to you, not myself. We have different views on Afghanistan and Iraq, so why would I want to go to a desert wasteland that isn't liberated? You feel they are, so you can go.

I salute you and applaud you for your Military service. However, it has nothing to do with this thread and wasn't even called into question. Once again, you're being dishonest and it's obvious.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No.  It's not outrage at all, you dishonest litle twit.
> ...



There is outrage... by those who after 700+ posts still can't answer one simple question from the first page... 

*What Obama has done to deserve the prize?*


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Ame®icano;1601270 said:
			
		

> There is outrage... by those who after 700+ posts still can't answer one simple question from the first page...
> 
> *What Obama has done to deserve the prize?*



I have already answered that question several times and in several threads for example. So your post doesn't apply.


----------



## mal (Oct 10, 2009)

Ame®icano;1601270 said:
			
		

> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



What Rational Person would Claim that Obama did ANYTHING?...

Obama Concedes that himself.



peace...


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Ame®icano;1601270 said:
			
		

> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Almost every poster agrees that he has done nothing, and did not truly deserve to win it over the other nominees.

Hey, I know, lets do a poll!


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Almost every poster agrees that he has done nothing, and did not truly deserve to win it over the other nominees.



Wouldn't bother really. People are bent on their self-righteous trip. That question was answered several hundred posts ago.

Edit: I would agree with a poll. But even with the results, the same people wouldn't end their whining over this.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


Ah, I see.  Indeed you are debonair.  LOL.

It's a pretty good sample population here - normal distribution.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No.  It's not outrage at all, you dishonest litle twit.
> ...


WHO is angry??

hell, i'm LOL


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Thats mah point. 

The normal distribution on MB's usually makes the MB's retarded.

This is not a slam against this board. This is one of the best ones on the 'net IMO. But as a whole we're all pretty retarded.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

And yes, I am debonair. 

::


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No.  It still isn't.  You can point to no actual anger, as you know.  So, you can stop with your lying, now, you silly little twit.
> ...


ROFLMAO

NO, WRONG

i was SHOCKED and wondered what the hell for
then i LAUGHED at how stupid it was to even nominate a POTUS for an award after he had been in offices for only 12 days(one of which was just parties)


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> WHO is angry??
> 
> hell, i'm LOL



Well that's good. I think everyone can agree that he wasn't worthy of this prize. So why do people need a 800 circle-jerk post thread? "Oh you're right, oh you're right, oh you're right too."


----------



## mal (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Again, it was an Obvious Shot @ (43), as was Carter's...

Even Liberals in the Media have Acknowledged it, and Barry has said he didn't Deserve it.



peace...


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> NO, WRONG
> 
> i was SHOCKED and wondered what the hell for
> then i LAUGHED at how stupid it was to even nominate a POTUS for an award after he had been in offices for only 12 days(one of which was just parties)



Plenty of people are angry about this. Did I say you?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  Quite funny.  I might also suggest you get an adult to explain the concept of "derisive" laughter to you.  But that doesn't change the fact that there is no outrage.  It's funny.
> ...


except it is YOU that is deluding yourself
no one is angry, we are laughing at how meaningless the Nobel Peace Prize has become


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


IIRC, two - the inaugural parties and a Super Bowl party, no?

Anyway, I honestly thought it was a link to an _Onion_ story so I initially laughed until I found that it wasn't.  Then I came here and saw so many libs wetting themselves in glee.  That made it even funnier than an _Onion_ story.


Funny - Nobel's will requires that the prize be given for deeds over one year.  So, in reality, Obama was mostly given the prize for running a political campaign.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


except it is YOU that is deluding yourself
no one is angry, we are laughing at _*how meaningless the Nobel Peace Prize has become*_  [/quote]


The underlying current apparently shared worldwide.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

What confuses me the most about this is why people have so much weight into this award in the first place?

I keep seeing Carter, Yasser, and Gore brought up. So obviously those people didn't have much weight on this award beforehand I would assume.

As for the award itself, once again, Alfred Nobel, "The Merchant of Death", the inventor of Dynamite, created these awards to save his legacy. So I guess a lot of people do not see the irony in that.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > NO, WRONG
> ...


i havent seen anyone express anger over this
everyone i see is laughing at the stupidity of it all
well, other than a few on the left that are angry that anyone dare laugh at the award being given to their glorious leader


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I haven't either, but if the kid keeps saying it, eventually it must become true?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Funny - Nobel's will requires that the prize be given for deeds over one year.  So, in reality, Obama was mostly given the prize for running a political campaign.



It's good to see you are reading more closely now considering one of the threads earlier wondering why we didn't know who nominated Obama for the prize.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> i havent seen anyone express anger over this
> everyone i see is laughing at the stupidity of it all
> well, other than a few on the left that are angry that anyone dare laugh at the award being given to their glorious leader



So nobody in this country, anywhere is not angry over Obama getting this? Nobody, not at all, not in any way are angry? Why do I not believe you in that case?


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > NO, WRONG
> ...



It's plain to see someone like yourself doesn't know the difference between anger and bewilderment.

I would have to say your rudeness is based in anger. Anger at anyone who thinks Obama's act is getting a little too much to put up with.

I think you're pissed because some of us feel the little shit is in insufferable bore....which explains why you identify with him.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


 
Which BEGS the question of 'whom' Nominated him for it, and under what pretense other than his "Community Organizeing? His associations with known Communists? Terrorists? Statists?

What was the *prerequisite*  for the Nomination? And of thsaid prerequisite? Is it enough to get nominated, much less Awarded this phoney Reward for being a Liberal/Statist dipshit?

Obama's hands, and the rest of him have been TIED in a straightjacket, for NOW he has to live up to now finishing off his supposed "Home Country", that these on the Committee seem to HATE.


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 10, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unfucking believable. We can now officially write that award off as absolutely MEANINGLESS. And we can assume the committee is full of idiots, retards and political hacks..


That happened back when algore joined the list.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> It's plain to see someone like yourself doesn't know the difference between anger and bewilderment.
> 
> I would have to say your rudeness is based in anger. Anger at anyone who thinks Obama's act is getting a little too much to put up with.
> 
> I think you're pissed because some of us feel the little shit is in insufferable bore....which explains why you identify with him.



You talk about rudeness, but then go ahead and state what you think is my opinions as fact. Lovely hypocrisy there. 

I don't think Obama is worthy of this award, not sure how many times I have to say it before you can understand that.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Funny - Nobel's will requires that the prize be given for deeds over one year.  So, in reality, Obama was mostly given the prize for running a political campaign.
> ...


What does one have to do with the other in your mind?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> What does one have to do with the other in your mind?



Because if you had read more closely earlier, you would of never had to ask that question.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > It's a sound theory, and one that further drives the final NAIL in their coffin for being a JOKE of an _'AWARD'_. Never mind that BUSH Liberated 50+ Million folks from the tryranny they were suffering  from the murderous philosophies of those that they were subject.
> ...



It has become so absurd that liberals such as yourself deny the success in Iraq 

Numerous friends, family and business associates have repeated the same story time and time again, the majority of the Iraqi's love the fact that we did what we did, they can buy milk on a daily basis, bread, the newspaper, own cell phones, live their lives with more freedoms than they have ever had......are you sure they have not been liberated??? 

Try this  you never know, it might help.....


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > It's plain to see someone like yourself doesn't know the difference between anger and bewilderment.
> ...


You are seriously a bonafide idiot.  His point is your idiotic claim that he and others are angry.  Only an idiot would miss that, as it is his first sentence.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


I understand.  It is difficult for you to articulate a point.  And, I understand now that you find questions posed to you insulting (LOL).

But, I will laugh yet again at those razor sharp logic skills of yours.    Gotta love the 'you're too stupid to be able to understand my ramblings' debate methodology.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> It has become so absurd that liberals such as yourself deny the success in Iraq
> 
> Numerous friends, family and business associates have repeated the same story time and time again, t*he majority of the Iraqi's love the fact that we did what we did,* they can buy milk on a daily basis, bread, the newspaper, own cell phones, live their lives with more freedoms than they have ever had......are you sure they have not been liberated???
> 
> Try this  you never know, it might help.....



They couldn't buy milk and bread on a daily basis before Saddam? 

Also:

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show - washingtonpost.com

Even going back to 2004:

USATODAY.com - Poll: Iraqis out of patience



> BAGHDAD  O*nly a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger*, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll
> 
> *The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak*
> 
> But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. *Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers*





> I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye





> *"I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance,*" says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. "At the beginning ... there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people."



If that's love, I rather be unloved.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


Dog Breath seems to MISS outright the Liberty angle. As long as he has his Liberty, and his liberrty here to challange others to GO to A'Stan, when he/she/IT aren't willing to do so...

Is telling.

Typical Liberal "_I got mine, you get yours" mentality. And doesn't think it is worth the Blood/Sweat equity._

I wonder how this goof would have commented during WWII when we liberated Many more, and were _too late_ to save others?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Typical Liberal "_I got mine, you get yours" mentality.[/B] And doesn't think it is worth the Blood/Sweat equity._
> 
> I wonder how this goof would have commented during WWII when we liberated Many more, and were _too late_ to save others?



 That's the typical Liberal mentality? After all the talk about entitlements and handouts to people? Can you not even keep your bullshit straight?

Afghanistan is not liberated and neither is Iraq. Sorry if you can't face reality with that.

We did liberate in WWII, we are not liberating here.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Typical Liberal "_I got mine, you get yours" mentality.[/B] And doesn't think it is worth the Blood/Sweat equity._
> ...


really?
Iraq doesnt have an elected government?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



I can play that game as well.  The majority of Iraqis love the fact that we will be going home, that we are not patrolling their streets, that we are not polluting their cultural and religious environment.  And the government will ally with Iraq as soon as we are gone to make sure we never come back.

Nope, banghead, this is not a victory.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > It has become so absurd that liberals such as yourself deny the success in Iraq
> ...



Thanks for clarifying what most of us already knew, you believe everything you read, on the other hand you dismiss first hand knowledge, no real surprise....


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > It's plain to see someone like yourself doesn't know the difference between anger and bewilderment.
> ...



My attitude is justified.

You act like a little prick and I'm supposed to carry on like it never happened I suppose.

So spare me the indignation.

And of course you feel he's worthy of the award...mainly because you support everything he does. I believe that is because you really don't have any princples nor core values so to speak.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Typical Liberal "_I got mine, you get yours" mentality.[/b] And doesn't think it is worth the Blood/Sweat equity._
> ...


 
So? Have we annexed Afghanistan yet?

Silly Statist LIB toad...

In WAR you are there either to Liberate the oppressed, or there to take over the Country.

Which is it numbnuts?

And YES we Liberated them, or didn't the recent election say anything to you ? 

Are you normally this dense, DoggieStyle?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> really?
> Iraq doesnt have an elected government?



That's how you define liberated?


----------



## Againsheila (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Not nearly as tiring as the false claim (shared by you) that there is any "outrage" at all, much less this alleged "false outrage."
> ...



Excuse me?  What kind of logic is that?


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > It has become so absurd that liberals such as yourself deny the success in Iraq
> ...





JakeStarkey said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



Jake, there you go playing games again, this is an adult conversation, now get back to your room before you embarrass yourself some more.....


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> So? Have we annexed Afghanistan yet?
> 
> Silly Statist LIB toad...
> 
> ...



Except we went to Afghanistan to eliminate Al-Qaeda. The fact that the Government was involved with the group was only a circumstance.

And the election that is coming under fair for voting fraud? And have you by any chance taken a look at the Afghanistan Constitution lately?

Afghanistan: Law Curbing Womenâs Rights Takes Effect | Human Rights Watch



> A copy of the final law seen by Human Rights Watch shows that many regressive articles remain, which strip away women's rights that are enshrined in Afghanistan's constitution. T*he law gives a husband the right to withdraw basic maintenance from his wife, including food, if she refuses to obey his sexual demands. *It grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers. It requires women to get permission from their husbands to work. *It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying "blood money" to a girl who was injured when he raped he*r





> Karzai signed the Shia Personal Status Law in March, prompting a national and international storm of protest. T*he law regulates the personal affairs of Shia Muslims - who make up between 10 and 20 percent of the population - including divorce, separation, inheritance, and the minimum age for marriage. The initial version of the law included articles that imposed drastic restrictions on Shia women, including a requirement to ask permission to leave the house except on urgent business, and a requirement that a wife have sex with her husband at least once every four days.*
> 
> The law was designed in secret by a powerful and hard-line Shia leader, Ayatollah Asif Mohseni, and supported by conservative Shia leaders in parliament. Many women activists have accused Karzai of abandoning his previous moderate views on women's rights to help him secure votes in the presidential election.



Yep! Look liberated to me! Meet the new boss, same as old the boss.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> Excuse me?  What kind of logic is that?



Neither award affects us. I felt the award in both cases should of gone to more deserving people. It didn't. However, it doesn't affect me personally in either way so therefore it doesn't matter that much.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > So? Have we annexed Afghanistan yet?
> ...


its the government they elected


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

divecon said:


> dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > the t said:
> ...


 
bingo.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > So? Have we annexed Afghanistan yet?
> ...


 

They were AFFORDED the oppritunity to VOTE for whomever by OUR sweat/Blood Equity. It was _their_ choice wheter YOU personally agree to it or NOT.

But this too, escapes you.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 10, 2009)

An interesting take on Obama's Nobel from Rachel Maddow.  I wanted to post the transcript but it isn't out yet so if anyone would like to hear a logical argument from the Left on this award:

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

As far as the angry right comments, I heard Rush Limbaugh's and Glenn Beck's.  Their comments were definately not laughter it was anger.  The right insists that the Nobel itself is a joke, Obama winning it is a joke and any past Democratic winner would be a joke yet they continue to complain bitterly about it every single year.

Who are they trying to convince?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> its the government they elected



Supposedly. And it is still restricting women. So it's not liberating at all.

UN seeks to explain Afghanistan vote fraud concerns_English_Xinhua

ANALYSIS-U.N.'s Afghan vote fraud row shows split in West | Reuters



> In a strongly worded letter to Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, veteran U.S. diplomat Peter Galbraith accused his Norwegian U.N. boss of blocking anti-fraud efforts, which Galbraith said would have forced a second round of voting if carried out properly.
> 
> The United Nations responded by sacking Galbraith. The U.N. mission chief, Kai Eide, has rejected the criticism and says he supports a fraud investigation which is still under way





> Galbraith is a close ally of Richard Holbrooke, President Barack Obama's point man for Afghanistan and Pakistan.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> They were AFFORDED the oppritunity to VOTE for whomever by OUR sweat/Blood Equity. It was _their_ choice wheter YOU personally agree to it or NOT.
> 
> But this too, escapes you.



Except it wasn't who they voted for.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> An interesting take on Obama's Nobel from Rachel Maddow.  I wanted to post the transcript but it isn't out yet so if anyone would like to hear a logical argument from the Left on this award:
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
> 
> ...


So, you link to Maddow.  Cool.  But those of us who don't watch Limbaugh or Beck are supposed to take your word for it that they were not laughing?  Sorry, not going to happen.  Links?


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> An interesting take on Obama's Nobel from Rachel Maddow.  I wanted to post the transcript but it isn't out yet so if anyone would like to hear a logical argument from the Left on this award:
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
> 
> ...



I think their point is that the Nobel Prize has been delegitimized by their choices. 

Choosing a terrorist, the worst President in recent history, and a POTUS that hasn't accomplished anything in his life other then organize people so they can steal elections. All of these things pretty much puts the Kabosh on any legitimacy the award used to have.

Just like the ACLU, the Nobel Peace Prize committee has been taken over by radicals. So whatever the award used to stand for that pretty much is history. And with each passing year their choices become more and more ridiculous.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting take on Obama's Nobel from Rachel Maddow. I wanted to post the transcript but it isn't out yet so if anyone would like to hear a logical argument from the Left on this award:
> ...


 
100% The point. These people have relegated the award to FAR what it's intent _was._


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting take on Obama's Nobel from Rachel Maddow.  I wanted to post the transcript but it isn't out yet so if anyone would like to hear a logical argument from the Left on this award:
> ...



Have you listened to the link I provided?


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > They were AFFORDED the oppritunity to VOTE for whomever by OUR sweat/Blood Equity. It was _their_ choice wheter YOU personally agree to it or NOT.
> ...


 
Then where is the contention? Where is this story in your much heralded Media?


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Well, obama has promised peace in our time, and Chamberlain was very popular immediately after Munich.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Then where is the contention? Where is thios story in your much heralded Media?



UN seeks to explain Afghanistan vote fraud concerns_English_Xinhua

Reuters: ANALYSIS-U.N.'s Afghan vote fraud row shows split in West | Reuters

CNN: Karzai warns West over Afghan vote fraud claims - CNN.com

Karzai threatening.

CNN again: U.S. urges Karzai to allow vote fraud probe - CNN.com

NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/30/world/AP-AS-Afghanistan.html

MSNBC: Vote fraud allegations mount in Afghanistan - Afghanistan- msnbc.com

Al Jazeera: Al Jazeera English - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - EU says 1.5m Afghan votes suspect

Washington Post: Accusations Of Vote Fraud Multiply in Afghanistan - washingtonpost.com

WSJ: Karzai Rebuts Allegations of Fraud in Afghan Vote - WSJ.com

BBC: BBC NEWS | South Asia | Afghan election fraud probe grows

And of course:

Fox News: U.N. Officials in Afghanistan Disagree Over Response to Vote Fraud Charges - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

Is that enough for you? 

Edit: Daily Show - Another great piece with Stewart.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-17-2009/voter-fraud-in-afghanistan


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


Um, dear?  You said you heard comments from Limbaugh and Beck that were angry.  I take no one's word for anything.

Links?

Check the link you provided.  It's to a summary of BHO's approval polls.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJuEOaF84o]YouTube - Rachel Maddow: The Nobel Prize & Obama Derangement Syndrome[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting take on Obama's Nobel from Rachel Maddow.  I wanted to post the transcript but it isn't out yet so if anyone would like to hear a logical argument from the Left on this award:
> ...


i heard some of Rush yesterday, he was LAUGHING at it
so sarahg just proves once more what a moron she is


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Sorry, I was looking at that too.  Anyway, the comments from Glenn Beck and Limbaugh should also be in the video.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Maddow: The Nobel Prize & Obama Derangement Syndrome


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


Thanks.  That happens from time to time.

I'll look.  Thanks again.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Then where is the contention? Where is thios story in your much heralded Media?
> ...


 
Then gee? Don't you THINK it's a wonderful thing that *WE* afforded them the oppritunity to figure this out for themselves?

What a _wonderful_ thing Liberation *IS*, that they are afforded that oppritunity, rather than "Our WAY of the highway" [DEATH] for even going that direction if it were LEFT to the Taliban?

Again? You demonstrate two-demensional thinking. YES I ad mit to asking you for sources...but the _underlying POINT_ has been because WE were there gave them the _oppritunity_ to question it.

Game, SET, Match.

Thank you for playing.

You'll receive the _Home Game instead._


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Then gee? Don't you THINK it's a wonderful thing that *WE* afforded them the oppritunity to figure this out for themselves?
> 
> What a _wonderful_ thing Liberation *IS*, that they are afforded that oppritunity, rather than "Our WAY of the highway" [DEATH] for even going that direction if it were LEFT to the Taliban?
> 
> ...



Except we haven't allowed them to figure this out for themselves. It is only due to certain parties stepping in that the questioning has been allowed to occur. We have sat by as we allowed him to steal the election. Women have no rights, once again. This is no different than the Taliban. That is not Liberation.

We also haven't given them the opportunity to truly question it.

I want you to tell me how this is different than the Taliban in terms of rights in Afghanistan for women and in general.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Then gee? Don't you THINK it's a wonderful thing that *WE* afforded them the oppritunity to figure this out for themselves?
> ...



Women have no rights.  Go figure.  It's the kind of society the people want.  It would have happened whether we toppled saddam or the iraqi people overthrew him.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> An interesting take on Obama's Nobel from Rachel Maddow.  I wanted to post the transcript but it isn't out yet so if anyone would like to hear a logical argument from the Left on this award:
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
> 
> ...



Did you mean to post the RCP Job Approval Rating???? I thought you were referencing Mad Cow???

I did find this interesting about polls (this is for you to dogbert)......

Now the RCP President Obama Job Approval Poll says he is +12, yet they also say that the Direction of the Country Poll is -22???


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Women have no rights.  Go figure.  It's the kind of society the people want.  It would have happened whether we toppled saddam or the iraqi people overthrew him.



In Iraq too, but I'm talking about Afghanistan. My point is that we did not liberate. Especially when almost half the country has no rights.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting take on Obama's Nobel from Rachel Maddow.  I wanted to post the transcript but it isn't out yet so if anyone would like to hear a logical argument from the Left on this award:
> ...



if you were to read "The Hitler Myth", this may sound very familiar.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> if you were to read "The Hitler Myth", this may sound very familiar.



Did it take 53 pages for perhaps the first Hitler reference? Can anyone verify this?


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > if you were to read "The Hitler Myth", this may sound very familiar.
> ...



It's not really a Hitler reference.  It's a reference to how politics works.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > if you were to read "The Hitler Myth", this may sound very familiar.
> ...



No. Someone mentioned early in that Hitler was nominated for the prize in 1939. Then someone later claimed that he actually won the prize.

All threads get Godwin'ed by page 7 or 8. You know that.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
In those societies? They didn't! Great observation. Our sweat/Blood made it so.

To hear the left? They seem to be outraged. Where are the Women's groups in this countyry that seem to be apparently _missing on their *sisters*_ over there being oppressed, and the fact that WE gave them the RIGHT to VOTE?

Awesome thought.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> It's not really a Hitler reference.  It's a reference to how politics works.



But it fulfills Godwin's Law. 

And I understand the point you're trying to get across. However, in this case, those same people may not blame Obama for their problems but other factors. Obama can't solve every problem as much as he may want to try.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> No. Someone mentioned early in that Hitler was nominated for the prize in 1939. Then someone later claimed that he actually won the prize.
> 
> All threads get Godwin'ed by page 7 or 8. You know that.



Did they really? If you could me show, so I could point and call them a fucktard. 

And that's what I figured. 53 pages to be Godwin'ed is too long.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



I was referring to the gap between the approval rating of the man vs the approval rating of whether the country is going in the right direction.  Kershaw's book explains how this can happen.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


Obviously.  But the reactionaries get all knee-jerky easily.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> In those societies? They didn't! Great observation. Our sweat/Blood made it so.
> 
> To hear the left? They seem to be outraged. Where are the Women's groups in this countyry that seem to be apparently _missing on their *sisters*_ over there being oppressed, and the fact that WE gave them the RIGHT to VOTE?
> 
> Awesome thought.



Women have no rights in Afghanistan and Iraq in the present. It will only get worse over time until eventually it's business as usual. We did not liberate and we can not liberate until women get rights in these countries. Since they do not have rights, these countries are not liberated.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



I know. But yours wasn't the first Hitler reference.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Obviously.  But the reactionaries get all knee-jerky easily.



It was a joke you clown. My god your sense of humor must be dead too.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



I am surprised it lasted this long.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously. But the reactionaries get all knee-jerky easily.
> ...


 

Is this how you explain your performance in this thread?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > No. Someone mentioned early in that Hitler was nominated for the prize in 1939. Then someone later claimed that he actually won the prize.
> ...



No way am I going back through all this swill to look for it.

But I do remember Vast LWC is the person who said he won it.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously.  But the reactionaries get all knee-jerky easily.
> ...


Perhaps.  It's hard to tell when you're actually playing stupid or just being yourself.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Is this how you explain your performance in this thread?



Well I thought it was the way you explain yours. Then I just realized you're ignorant to the truth.

Ask women in Afghanistan and Iraq about their so-called rights. Careful though, their husband or male family member right next to them may not like the questions you ask.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > In those societies? They didn't! Great observation. Our sweat/Blood made it so.
> ...



You really don't know what you're talking about.

They can go to school, and fill public office.

Both of which they couldn't before Bush....so like I said..you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


did he say anything about the ability to go to school?  You may want to address the points he made about women's rights.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Is this how you explain your performance in this thread?
> ...



I don't understand why anybody wastes their time arguing with this piece of shit.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
Exactly MY point. Where is the support from the NAGS? Other Women's groups?

NON existant.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


well, women had so many rights in Afghanistan under Taliban rule


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


I wondered where those women's groups were when the Lewinsky scandal hit.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


Dogbert was talking about rights.  Going to school was not a right for women.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> You really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> They can go to school, and fill public office.
> 
> Both of which they couldn't before Bush....so like I said..you don't know what you're talking about.



A woman serving public office in Afghanistan is about as likely as me being able to swim underwater for 24 hours straight. Neither is going to happen and you know it.

If you refer to the illusion of being able to fill public office, then you be right.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Yeah ok.  I think the way women are being treated there is a function of their culture, not whether Hussein is in power.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



yeah I can't imagine they would want to be back under Taliban rule.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Under Saddam, the state was secular...seems like women were better off....


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



Well democracy is the worst form of government until something better comes along.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Yeah ok.  I think the way women are being treated there is a function of their culture, not whether Hussein is in power.



Which is exactly my point and what I've been saying here on this board for over a year now.

The battle isn't in the desert wasteland battlegrounds. It's in the classroom. It's in teaching the males of Afghanistan that equality for women is the right thing to do. However, we can't do that since their culture would not allow them such a thing.

As long as their culture is the way it is, women in Afghanistan will never be liberated and always be second class citizens.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Is this how you explain your performance in this thread?
> ...


 

But they HAVE the right to VOTE...do they not?

This woman would SLAP yer face...






But then you may be hiding your male chauvenistic side, eh?

Or are these people too STUPID for your taste? Or is their Liberty more than you can bear? Well? YOU have yours, don't you?


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah ok.  I think the way women are being treated there is a function of their culture, not whether Hussein is in power.
> ...



You're talking about undoing a culture that has been present for thousands of years.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



This is just a guess but...maybe because he makes some sense?

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose....


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



That's one of my favorite songs.  Rep points for you.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> You're talking about undoing a culture that has been present for thousands of years.



No, I'm talking about what needs to be done to win. It can't be done. Which is my point. Which is why we need to leave Afghanistan. There's a reason why I call it a Desert Wasteland.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> But they HAVE the right to VOTE...do they not?
> 
> This woman would SLAP yer face...
> 
> ...



Women have the right to vote in Afghanistan like servants would. They can vote however they like, but it doesn't mean their husbands or male family members will be happy. And if they aren't happy, well I don't have to tell you what will happen.

Now you're being dishonest by trying to accuse me of being chauvenistic and I think everyone in this thread can agree on that.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > You're talking about undoing a culture that has been present for thousands of years.
> ...



I don't know.  Germany no longer has the anti-Semitism and xenophobia they once had.  and those things didn't start with Hitler.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



You really don't know what your talking about and your ignorance in lumping Afghanistan and Iraq is particularly glaring.

Women  - at the moment, in Afghanistan - have more rights than they did under the Talibon - but - and this is a BIG BUT - those rights are fragile and eroding rapidly.

In Iraq, quite the opposite is true.  Women actually had more rights - constitutionally - under Saddam than they do under their current government.  The only thing Saddam did that was "good" was to run a secular state.  Women are less respected now than they were under the previous regime.  Under Saddam, they often occupying important government positions. Now, although their rights are still enshrined in the national constitution, in practice, they have lost almost all of their rights.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> I don't know.  Germany no longer has the anti-Semitism and xenophobia they once had.  and those things didn't start with Hitler.



It took 6 million dead Jews and a ravaged country and Europe to see the light though.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know.  Germany no longer has the anti-Semitism and xenophobia they once had.  and those things didn't start with Hitler.
> ...



But they did change once a new government was set up.  at least in West Germany.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> But they did change once a new government was set up.  at least in West Germany.



Because we forced it and had the support of the entire world. This is not the case here. Plus, I'm willing to bet the # of males in Afghanistan who do not wish to see women's rights is much higher % wise than the # of Anti semites in Germany. Before Hitler, it wasn't that strong. What Hitler did was play on people's fears and created a scapegoat like environment that created all the anti semites.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



The only thing clear about him is that is that he doesn't know how to talk to people that have an opposing viewpoint without acting like a total dickwad.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



lol...it is a good song, one of my fav's too


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> The only thing clear about him is that is that he doesn't know how to talk to people that have an opposing viewpoint without acting like a total dickwad.



 Now that's a myth if I ever saw one. I get along with plenty of Conservatives on this board. Elvis being one of them technically if he a Conservative.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > But they did change once a new government was set up.  at least in West Germany.
> ...



that's not entirely true.  Some of it goes back hundreds of years.  martin luther was a raving anti-Semite and he had a big influence on German culture.  anti-semitism was strong in Vienna when Hitler was living there as a struggling artist.  Austria welcomed the Nazis and their anti-jewish laws.  The historical part of the Sound of Music is total bullshit.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



You figured out a way to agree with me but disagree.

He said women have no rights. So obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about and even you agree with me.

Then you said I didn't know what I was talking about but you said they have rights. 

So in effect you should agree with me that he doesn't know what he's talking about....but instead you decided to be on his side. 

I guess it all depends on who you want to side with on any issue whether it's right or wrong. 

Glad you made that very clear to us.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> that's not entirely true.  Some of it goes back hundreds of years.  martin luther was a raving anti-Semite and he had a big influence on German culture.  anti-semitism was strong in Vienna when Hitler was living there as a struggling artist.  Austria welcomed the Nazis and their anti-jewish laws.  The historical part of the Sound of Music is total bullshit.



That's very true if you look at it that way. However as you stated earlier:



> You're talking about undoing a culture that has been present for thousands of years.



I'm not denying that Anti-semitism didn't exist in Germany before Hitler. I'm just saying it wasn't at the level it was during Hitler's reign. However, the current culture in Afghanistan is dominant in all walks of Afghanistan life and Government. The hurdle of stopping this culture in Afghanistan is much harder than it is in Germany. Hitler was a crazy, ruthless, and had much charisma. However, he was only one man. We're talking about an entire culture and majority of a gender in this case. Plus, to many people it's part of their religion. And a religion is also much harder to go against than a political way of thinking.

Whether it is viable is still up for question however I think it's doubtful.


----------



## JW Frogen (Oct 10, 2009)

Not only do I think this award premature, as we all know Obama has not achieved any of the goals concerning peace he has advocated, but it is wrong. Morally wrong to give this award to Obama because where he has had a chance to act on behalf of peace he has not.

In Iran he remained silent as the democracy movement was brutally crushed, offering them not even rhetorical support (until he was forced to and then it was muted) and then rushed to recognize the stolen election result.

He will not meet with the Dali Lama and has offered little or no support to Chinese dissidents (two of whom were being considered for the Peace Prize and would have been far more worthy winners) so awarding to Obama only sends a signal to the Chinese that repression is not a Nobel Committee concern.

The war in Afghanistan has degenerated, it is more violent under Obama and his administration is clearly confused about what to do about it.

The Israeli Palestinian conflict is farther from solution than it has been in decades and Obama&#8217;s stumbling with Israel has seen them make statements they do no see him as an honest broker.

Iran, having been offered Obama&#8217;s open hand of diplomatic friendship (unconditionally) has snubbed him, continues to support terror in the region and build a nuclear weapon.

Obama abandoned our NATO allies in Eastern Europe pulling away a missile defense system most of them claim is essential (not to deter Iran) but to cement their place in the Western democratic world and protect them from a resurgent Russia.

Even on areas where Obama clearly wants progress, such as global warming he can not achieve it, he will be one of the only Western leaders to go to Copenhagen without any real emissions legislation in hand, he will talk of grand aspirations but will have done in reality nothing.

Once again the Nobel Committee has confirmed they care more about PC feel good slogans than they really do the hard work of peace with freedom.

Indeed freedom does not seem to concern them at all.-


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> You figured out a way to agree with me but disagree.
> 
> He said women have no rights. So obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about and even you agree with me.
> 
> ...



The "rights" of women in Afghanistan are exactly what Coyote said. They are an illusion and rapidly going back to the level they were during the Taliban. They may exist on paper but when put into action, they falter. Women can have the right to run for public office, but might telling us how many women have been elected? Women have the right to go to school, but mind telling us how many graduate? It makes it tougher upon them when the majority of them are sold off or married off before the age of 16.

I know what I'm talking about. If you care to delude yourself that the women of Afghanistan have rights then so be it. However, don't try to peddle that to the rest of us here in reality. Why don't you go ask a woman in Afghanistan in front of her husband or male family members about whether she should have more freedom and be independent like women here in America. You can then relay us back her answer. Provided you aren't killed of course.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



You said:  *They can go to school, and fill public office.

Both of which they couldn't before Bush....so like I said..you don't know what you're talking about.*

You are wrong.  In Iraq at least, they could do both before Bush.  Now, because of violence targeted at women's schools in some regions....can they still do both?

It's not a matter of siding with anyone, it's a matter of accuracy.  Iraq and Afghanistan are as different as America and Italy.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> You said:  *They can go to school, and fill public office.
> 
> Both of which they couldn't before Bush....so like I said..you don't know what you're talking about.*
> 
> ...



When we first invaded Iraq, the majority of people didn't want us there. Which is why in 2006, the majority of people wanted us gone. Now it's 2009, and I'm willing to bet they still want us gone.

Great post on your part and in this thread.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > You figured out a way to agree with me but disagree.
> ...



Exactly!  While the "right" to an education may exist on paper, and the "right" to vote, and the "right" to hold public office the reality is that violence against women - violence that is condoned by the government - prevents them from exercising those rights.  They may as well not exist.


----------



## Againsheila (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Really?  Did the women get to vote?


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > You said:  *They can go to school, and fill public office.
> ...



not gonna happen.  I wonder how many South Koreans want us there.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> not gonna happen.  I wonder how many South Koreans want us there.



To be honest, that is a good question. I have never actually seen any numbers that say one or another on that issue. However, if it is anything like Afghanistan and Iraq then they probably didn't.

And I know it's not going to happen.


----------



## JW Frogen (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> not gonna happen.  I wonder how many South Koreans want us there.




I wonder how many North Koreans whisper I wish the US was here.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing clear about him is that is that he doesn't know how to talk to people that have an opposing viewpoint without acting like a total dickwad.
> ...



That sounds strangely similar to the "I have Black Friends" statement.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > You said:  *They can go to school, and fill public office.
> ...



Yes...and it was the pig-ignorance and naivete of the Bush administration to think that all they had to do was topple Saddam and democracy would flourish.  They hadn't a clue that democracy means more than "freedom" and the ability to vote.  In order to flourish it needs certain institutions like a well educated populace, and a way of protecting minorities and the weak.  Instead - it ushered in a anarchic free-for all with most powerful winning and a medievil religous elite that views women as chattel.  I think if they could have brought about their own revolution, in time, it would have been better.  You can't export democracy.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > not gonna happen.  I wonder how many South Koreans want us there.
> ...



Not many.  but some of that has to do with how closed off the country is.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Dogbert's cool.  He's just idealistic.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



North Korea is downright creepy....


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> That sounds strangely similar to the "I have Black Friends" statement.



Not at all. It means I get along with smart Conservatives. Ones like you or PI or JenT not so much.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dogbert's cool.  He's just idealistic.



Not so much about politics anymore but I'm a bit young so give it time.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



BS!

He's already won the award.  He's a lame duck.  Now he can do whatever the F! he wants and screw the NPP committee.

Immie


----------



## JW Frogen (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Funny how every North Korean who gets out prefers the US sponsored south to their little gulag homeland.

Indeed North Korea is the perfect laboratory for viewing the results of the pax Americana or what the world would be like in it's absense.

The same culture with two radically different results.

In the US sphere we have a real democracy, a thriving economy and basic human rights.

In the Chinese sphere of influence we have a literal prison camp writ large, mass starvation, a nuclear weapons drive and a bellicose foreign policy.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


he has time to learn though


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > JW Frogen said:
> ...



Yes, certainly the south is better.  I just wonder if the south koreans would rather the US leave and let them take care of themselves.  Part of me thinks we should have followed MacArthur into china when we had the chance.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

When China fired into North Korea, that was an act of war on the US.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Yes, certainly the south is better.  I just wonder if the south koreans would rather the US leave and let them take care of themselves.  Part of me thinks we should have followed MacArthur into china when we had the chance.



MacArthur and Patton ended up being right. It was our leaders here and Europe who basically shouldered this problem to future generations knowing they were doing so.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert's cool.  He's just idealistic.
> ...


LOL
how funny


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Yeah.....whatever.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> When China fired into North Korea, that was an act of war on the US.



Korean War was a Proxy War like Vietnam was.


----------



## JW Frogen (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Yes, certainly the south is better.  I just wonder if the south koreans would rather the US leave and let them take care of themselves.  Part of me thinks we should have followed MacArthur into china when we had the chance.



Certainly not the generation who experienced the threat of communist domination, the Korean War but many younger South Koreans express this desire, this is the nature of democracy, after years of comfort and freedom some generations are born with no realization of the power and or sacrifice that was required to grant them that Lockean bubble of freedom and prosperity.

If we look at South Korean election results and how they rotate it would seem the country is divided on the issue. Only tyrannies have unity of purpose, this division is to the credit of the US as it reveals she allows real democracy.

If the US did leave however there would quickly come the shock as the North said goodbye to all that "sunshine" and started making military threats at reunification under the "Dear Leader".


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> LOL
> how funny



Despite being on this board over a year, I still am able to poke fun at myself. 

I think we can agree I have definitely changed in my year here.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, certainly the south is better.  I just wonder if the south koreans would rather the US leave and let them take care of themselves.  Part of me thinks we should have followed MacArthur into china when we had the chance.
> ...



Patton?  A war on the eastern front?  Not sure about that.  We would have to ask Xeno or Dude or gunny or RGS about that one.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Yeah.....whatever.



The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | International | Whatever is worst word



> London, Oct. 8: Whatever has been voted the most annoying word in American English.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


 
Disagree. Sure he has the AWARD, and has accpted it. But what you seem to have missed is Obama's very own Comments...

OBAMA:  I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel committee

OBAMA:  -- recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.  To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize.

***And the ASS KICKER***

OBAMA:  Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement, *it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes,* and that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the twenty-first century.  These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation.  That's why my administration's worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.

_________________
To the FIRST emboldened?

According to NOBEL's WILL?

When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. *The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses."* 

Had OBAMA done such a thing only 12 DAYS into office from his Immacculation?

I hardly THINK SO.

Seems that OBAMA's acceptance of this AWARD, and that of Mr. NOBEL are at odds...eh?

Again? OBAMA has been placed in a StraightJacket. Even by his own admission.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Patton?  A war on the eastern front?  Not sure about that.  We would have to ask Xeno or Dude or gunny or RGS about that one.



I'm more saying that Patton ended up being right about Russia. I would ask Gunny about this more than anything. However, a war on the Eastern Front was possible. The end of WWII is probably when they were the most weakest in the last sixty five years. Unless of course you count the fall of the Soviet Union but at that point there was no use in doing anything.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.....whatever.
> ...



Kind of fit don't you think.

An annoying response to an annoying fuck like yourself.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, certainly the south is better.  I just wonder if the south koreans would rather the US leave and let them take care of themselves.  Part of me thinks we should have followed MacArthur into china when we had the chance.
> ...


Patton was right about continuing the war into the USSR?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...


i said the same thing before i saw that post


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Patton?  A war on the eastern front?  Not sure about that.  We would have to ask Xeno or Dude or gunny or RGS about that one.
> ...



an American Barbarossa.  recruiting Germans to help.  better start in April.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



We are going to discuss what would have happened. yes.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Patton was right about continuing the war into the USSR?



If you look at it the way I stated earlier, we fought two wars with the USSR. Korean War and the Vietnam War.

PLUS, we gave help to Osama Bin Laden and those in Afghanistan when they were fighting the USSR.

We were better off in continuing war with the USSR at their weakest point instead of just fighting proxy wars over the course of forty years and diplomacy dick waving over the last ten.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Not nearly as tiring as the false claim (shared by you) that there is any "outrage" at all, much less this alleged "false outrage."
> ...



700 posts, many of which are left wing responses defending the award.

Personally, although I feel it was too early to award this to him, I am by no means upset with him.  I think the committee screwed up and I have to wonder if none of the 205 nominees were worthy of the award, but I am not outraged by the award.  It appears more of a joke than anything else and you have pretty much said the same thing in your posts.

The President did not yet deserve this award.  Even he said so.  It seems to me that the award is made less and less valuable every year because of the ridiculous recipients and quite frankly, I think that awarding President Obama this award this year cheapens anything else he does towards peace in the future.  I find that sad.

I pray for the President's success but I think this award was at least one yea, rand probably two, too early.



Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No.  It's not outrage at all, you dishonest litle twit.
> ...



Come to think of it, the only "outrage" I have noticed in regards to this award is from some on the left who are pissed that anyone on the right would question the validity of this farce of an award.

Immie


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Patton was right about continuing the war into the USSR?
> ...



Korea and Vietnam were fought AFTER USSR had developed the bomb in 1949.  when the russians developed the bomb and China went communist, there was a shift in American foreign policy regarding communism.  1949 was a major turning point.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Kind of fit don't you think.
> 
> An annoying response to an annoying fuck like yourself.



Coyote is an annoying fuck? Since you were responding to Coyote and not me when you said that.

Or did you not remember that?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Korea and Vietnam were fought AFTER USSR had developed the bomb in 1949.  when the russians developed the bomb and China went communist, there was a shift in American foreign policy regarding communism.  1949 was a major turning point.



That it was. Which is why if there was any point in history to fight the USSR it would of been after WWII.

Though I don't see Patton going the way Barbarossa did. You know, drowning in a river when bathing.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


 
That's a GOOD point. Seems he too missed the quote of General John "BLACKJACK PERSHING"...who commented on this very same thing before the END of the first World War regarding Germany...

He was FOR continuing WWI, until the Germans signed their surrender_ IN BERLIN, _for he knew that WE would have to confront them again, and we did just that.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Patton was right about continuing the war into the USSR?
> ...


First of all, conflating Chinese communism to Soviet communism is not wise.  There was more to those two wars than Soviet communism.

The fall of Soviet Union was more due to economic stress and had little to do with Viet Nam and Korea.  

Now, with respect to Patton's idea to continue into the USSR, that would not have been bloodless in the least.  The goal was to topple their communist regime.  Granted, it did not happen immediately, but with just a couple of handfuls of deaths during the Cold War, Soviet Union fell.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



World War I was a bitter fight.  Germany had ended the war with Russia (as soon as wilson declared war) .  How long would it have taken to get to Beriin?   How many casualties would we have suffered>


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I think the arms race coupled with their war in Afghanistan broke the Soviet economy and the country itself.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


 
Don't know...but the point stands...even a certain German _Corporal_ didn't belive it to be over either.

HERE is his Photo from that time...Now shorten the Mustache...


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> First of all, conflating Chinese communism to Soviet communism is not wise.  There was more to those two wars than Soviet communism.
> 
> The fall of Soviet Union was more due to economic stress and had little to do with Viet Nam and Korea.
> 
> Now, with respect to Patton's idea to continue into the USSR, that would not have been bloodless in the least.  The goal was to topple their communist regime.  Granted, it did not happen immediately, but with just a couple of handfuls of deaths during the Cold War, Soviet Union fell.



I'm not saying those two things are the same thing. Mao and Stalin hated one another. Maoism and Stalinism are two different things. I never said they were one in the same.

The Fall of the USSR happened for reasons including economic stress. Trying to keep up defense spending with Reagan wasn't a smart move.

There was not a handful of deaths during the Cold War. The Korean War and Vietnam War can easily be considered a part of the Cold War. No war is bloodless.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


Honestly, I am not convinced either way.

The Allies were war weary.  So were all nations, including USSR.  Maybe we could have dispatched that regime quickly, maybe not.  Either way, it would not have been bloodless.

In exchange, we had the Cold War with USSR.  Economic growth, for sure.  A long period of cold conflict as well.  And, massive proliferation of WMD.

Even in hindsight, it is a hard call for me as to what would have been better.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> I think the arms race coupled with their war in Afghanistan broke the Soviet economy and the country itself.



Which is why I said earlier we need to leave Afghanistan or otherwise we'd go the way of the Soviet Union. You are right though.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, conflating Chinese communism to Soviet communism is not wise.  There was more to those two wars than Soviet communism.
> ...


No, Viet Nam and Korea are wars in and of themselves.  The Cold War gets its name because it is a cold war.  (WTF?)

You claimed that the Viet Nam and Korean wars were proxy wars with USSR - not a single mention of Communist China.  I found that quite odd and assumed you must be conflating the two and dumping them into the same basket.  At least that's a relief that you have learned there is a difference.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



except hitler didn't want a war with Britain.  He didn't want  a war with France other than to avenge Versailles.   He said in Mein Kampf that there would be a war with France just because the two countries didn't get along.  He wanted to expand eastward.  I've wondered recently why  Britain would sacrifice its entire empire to keep Germany in line.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> except hitler didn't want a war with Britain.  He didn't want  a war with France other than to avenge Versailles.   He said in Mein Kampf that there would be a war with France just because the two countries didn't get along.  He wanted to expand eastward.  I've wondered recently why  Britain would sacrifice its entire empire to keep Germany in line.



Churchill has something to do with that.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


Yes, Afghanistan too.  Good point.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> No, Viet Nam and Korea are wars in and of themselves.  The Cold War gets its name because it is a cold war.  (WTF?)
> 
> You claimed that the Viet Nam and Korean wars were proxy wars with USSR - not a single mention of Communist China.  I found that quite odd and assumed you must be conflating the two and dumping them into the same basket.  At least that's a relief that you have learned there is a difference.



I may of forgotten to mention Communist China but they were a part of it as well. I didn't learn in this thread there was a difference, I knew.

However, the Korean and Vietnam Wars were Proxy Wars. They would of never had gone as long as they did without the interference of outside forces.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > except hitler didn't want a war with Britain.  He didn't want  a war with France other than to avenge Versailles.   He said in Mein Kampf that there would be a war with France just because the two countries didn't get along.  He wanted to expand eastward.  I've wondered recently why  Britain would sacrifice its entire empire to keep Germany in line.
> ...



Yeah I know.  Like bombing the French fleet and Berlin to provoke Hitler into attacking her, thus obviously gaining political support to stay in the war.  but why?


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


Because they didn't want nor need a tyrant controlling Europe, including the land of the CZARS Nor the legacy of their aristocricy? Or the fact that Russia had VAST resources?

In any case. KUDOS to you for getting the Reference.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


but war was declared when Hitler entered Poland, not Russia.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > No, Viet Nam and Korea are wars in and of themselves.  The Cold War gets its name because it is a cold war.  (WTF?)
> ...


Stop being so defensive.  As I never said you learned from this thread, your defensiveness is bizarre.

How one can forget to mention Communist China when trying to claim that Viet Nam and Korea are proxy wars is also bizarre, but okie doke.



> .... However, the Korean and Vietnam Wars were Proxy Wars. They would of never had gone as long as they did without the interference of outside forces.


Proxy wars against the USSR, according to you, right?

Only a few handfuls of Americans died during the Cold War, so indeed it is considered a bloodless war.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Yeah I know.  Like bombing the French fleet and Berlin to provoke Hitler into attacking her, thus obviously gaining political support to stay in the war.  but why?



His good relationship with FDR perhaps played a bit in it. As for the other reasoning, I'm unsure.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I know.  Like bombing the French fleet and Berlin to provoke Hitler into attacking her, thus obviously gaining political support to stay in the war.  but why?
> ...



well yeah.  there were deals cut long before pearl harbor where the US would get bases IN Europe in return for supplying Britain.  What does that tell you?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> How one can forget to mention Communist China when trying to claim that Viet Nam and Korea are proxy wars is also bizarre, but okie doke.
> 
> Proxy wars against the USSR, according to you, right?
> 
> Only a few handfuls of Americans died during the Cold War, so indeed it is considered a bloodless war.



Because we were talking about the USSR, not China at the time. Or at least I was with Patton.

The Proxy Wars was against the USSR but China as well. China and Russia would of never had teamed up but that was the fear of the U.S. for a long time.

Plus, if you want to talk about cause and effect, the Proxy war against the USSR gave CIA training, funds, and weapons to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. So the victims of 9/11 and the Afghanistan War can be considered victims of the Cold War as well.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> well yeah.  there were deals cut long before pearl harbor where the US would get bases IN Europe in return for supplying Britain.  What does that tell you?



That tells me that one way or another, we were going into WWII. Which is why the theory that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor but did nothing about it always arises.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Psst! The quote from Churchill is if I remember correctly:



> Democracy is the worst form of government *except* for all the others.



But I won't tell if you won't


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> Really?  Did the women get to vote?



If they did, all hell is about to break loose in Afghanistan!   

Immie

PS: I think I am about to get in BIG trouble!


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> If they did, all hell is about to break loose in Afghanistan!
> 
> Immie
> 
> PS: I think I am about to get in BIG trouble!



Watch as a hailstorm of insults barrage you for using logic.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



He is a politician and you believe him?

I must say T, I thought you knew better than that.  

Immie


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > If they did, all hell is about to break loose in Afghanistan!
> ...


i think you missed his sarcastic point
LOL


----------



## maineman (Oct 10, 2009)

people fail to acknowledge that the prize committee may have received Obama's nomination by 1 FEB 09, but they are, in no way, constrained from considering all his accomplishments after that date and before the date that they announced their decision.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> i think you missed his sarcastic point
> LOL



Not at all, I was making a sarcastic point too directed at a certain someone or two.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> people fail to acknowledge that the prize committee may have received Obama's nomination by 1 FEB 09, but they are, in no way, constrained from considering all his accomplishments after that date and before the date that they announced their decision.



care to list those accomplishments and then compare them to the runner-up?  and afterwards have the audacity to defend their decision?


----------



## oreo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > well yeah.  there were deals cut long before pearl harbor where the US would get bases IN Europe in return for supplying Britain.  What does that tell you?
> ...




Just for your information we already went through WW11--  If you can read English you can turn to a history book-& actualy LEARN that-we were attacked on 12/07/1941 at Pearl Harbor--

Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone who was an Obamalong to actually KNOW that--


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


 

By the mere fact that I highlighted it says that I Do understand it, and don't trust  the NOBEL Committe for giving it to the Bamster, nor do I Trust the Bamster for _accepting it._

It's Convoluted, and p_erverted on both ends of this spectrum  _


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> people fail to acknowledge that the prize committee may have received Obama's nomination by 1 FEB 09, but they are, in no way, constrained from considering all his accomplishments after that date and before the date that they announced their decision.



Good to see you old friend, but I don't think that is fair to say in the least.  The fact of the matter is as I see it, that he should not have been nominated for the prize nor considered for it after 12 days in office.  

My guess is that you have not seen my other posts, but I truly believe he might have been worthy of such an award at least one year later, but not so soon.

Regardless, I continue to pray for his success.

Immie


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

oreo said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



but there were arms for bases deals between England and the US prior to pearl harbor, in which the US would get bases in mainland Europe if we supplied England.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > i think you missed his sarcastic point
> ...



And when I finally finished reading all the other posts, I saw that.  But, do you mind if I make that into a quote and attribute it to you for my own safety?   

Immie


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

oreo said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



You obviously can't read.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> but there were arms for bases deals between England and the US prior to pearl harbor, in which the US would get bases in mainland Europe if we supplied England.



Obamalong! You're worshipping at the altar of your messiah! 

Don't bother Oreo with facts. His partisan hackery blinds him too much.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > How one can forget to mention Communist China when trying to claim that Viet Nam and Korea are proxy wars is also bizarre, but okie doke.
> ...


Enough of your weaseling; it's time to grow up and be accountable for your words.  It's not the end of the world to make mistakes on the internet.  But, whenever I see weaseling to this extent, it does nothing for any credibility on your part.

You claimed the Viet Nam and Korea were proxy wars with the USSR.  That is way too simplistic and ignoring Communist China in that equation is ignorant.

We were talking about Patton with respect to toppling USSR, yet YOU mentioned Viet Nam and Korea.  Both those wars had little to do with USSR's falling.

You claimed that Viet Nam and Korea were the Cold War and as such, the Cold War involved more blood than the handfuls of American lives.  No.

This is not meant to be snarky, but here is some advice - I don't care if you take it or not, but I will mention it.

If you are interested in discussion and picking up information from others (and I admit that I am projecting here because that is MY interest), let go of your defensiveness.  Let go of your fear of being wrong.  Let go of the idea that a 'smackdown' is a good idea.

Take it or leave it; it matters little to me as I don't consider who is posting as important as what is posted.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> And when I finally finished reading all the other posts, I saw that.  But, do you mind if I make that into a quote and attribute it to you for my own safety?
> 
> Immie



You wouldn't be the first.


----------



## oreo (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



*HORSESHIT--*This U.S. was in a period of isolation--we didn't want ANYTHING to do with what Nazi Germany was doing.  We were suffering from the Great Depression--we had a great democrat CONSERVATIVE President--who only wanted to get this country up off it's knees.

When the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor--Winston Churchill was doing backfilps in his office.   He knew that the Japanese & the Germans just bit the big one.  The United States Of America..  And that was the end of them.  The war was over on 12/07/1941--the very day that the Japs attacked the USA.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Enough of your weaseling; it's time to grow up and be accountable for your words.  It's not the end of the world to make mistakes on the internet.  But, whenever I see weaseling to this extent, it does nothing for any credibility on your part.
> 
> You claimed the Viet Nam and Korea were proxy wars with the USSR.  That is way too simplistic and ignoring Communist China in that equation is ignorant.
> 
> ...



This isn't the first time that Elvis and I had discussed this topic. He will tell you firsthand that I know all about communist China into this equation. I'm not being a weasel. I referred to the Korean War originally then later Vietnam.

I never said that the Vietnam War or Korean War had anything to do with USSR's fall. I said they were part of the Proxy War between the U.S. and USSR and also the U.S. and China. The Afghanistan War however in the 80's was part of the USSR's downfall. THAT is when we supplied Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban with weapons, money, and everything else through the CIA who also trained them.

The Vietnam War and Korean War were part of the Cold War because it was Proxy wars. Those two wars would of had never gone on as long as it did if it weren't for the Russian and Chinese influence.

I'm not being defensive or anything. This is not the first time that I have discussed this on this board. I've done it plenty of times.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

oreo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



the historical documents disagree with you.  the American people were isolationist, yes.  as 81 percent of the country before December 7, was against getting involved the war.  FDR, however, was FAR from being isolationist.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

oreo said:


> *HORSESHIT--*This U.S. was in a period of isolation--we didn't want ANYTHING to do with what Nazi Germany was doing.  We were suffering from the Great Depression--we had a great democrat CONSERVATIVE President--who only wanted to get this country up off it's knees.
> 
> When the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor--Winson Churchill was doing backfilps in his office.   He knew that the Japanese & the Germans just bit the big one.   US.



The people might of been but FDR and many in the Government weren't.

You are right on one thing though, Churchill was doing backflips in office after Pearl Harbor.

However, FDR and Churchill had deals in place like Elvis said before Pearl Harbor.


----------



## The T (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


 

FDR wanted a piece of the action long before we got involved _formally. The Japanese provided the excuse._


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

The T said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



exactly.  and giving help to Britain in exchange for bases in mainland Europe tells us that he knew we'd be fighting the Germans.  Otherwise, that would have been quite the gamble.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> exactly.  and giving help to Britain in exchange for bases in mainland Europe tells us that he knew we'd be fighting the Germans.  Otherwise, that would have been quite the gamble.



Exactly. It wasn't if we were going into WWII, it was a matter of when.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


Could you reference those documents?  I am aware of deals with England for long term base leases elsewhere, but I am unfamiliar with the documents that support that there were deals for long term leases (or whatever instrument was used) on Continental Europe.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Si modo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



I can but they can't be found on the internet.


----------



## maineman (Oct 10, 2009)

President Obama won the award.  It surprised even him.  But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail.  Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that this presitigeous award has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?


----------



## Chris (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> President Obama won the award.  It surprised even him.  But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail.  Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that this presitigeous award has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?



Old white racists will always hate Obama. 

Even if he invented a free energy machine, they would say he was putting oil company employees out of work.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


That would be great.  The Archives are a common rainy afternoon outing for me.  You can PM it to me if you prefer.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> President Obama won the award.  It surprised even him.  But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail.  Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that this presitigeous award has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?


but it devalues the award by giving it to sdomeone that hasnt actually done something

personally i'm laughing at the whole thing be cause its so clearly a partisan bullshit thing


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama won the award.  It surprised even him.  But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail.  Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that this presitigeous award has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?
> ...


keep on proving me right in calling you a pathetic moron


----------



## oreo (Oct 10, 2009)

A SMART President would have "gracefully" said thanks but no thanks--especially since he has to make a decision on troop levels to Afganistan--

This media coverage & awards por NADA--is getting a little ridiculous.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Old white racists will always hate Obama.
> 
> Even if he invented a free energy machine, they would say he was putting oil company employees out of work.



I'm not an old white racist and I don't think he really deserved this award.


----------



## Meister (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama won the award.  It surprised even him.  But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail.  Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that this presitigeous award has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?
> ...



Well he would be putting them out of business wouldn't he?  But that has nothing to do with racism.  But your first comment is very racist, Chris.  You exposed a little about yourself that you might want to work on.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

oreo said:


> A SMART President would have "gracefully" said thanks but no thanks--especially since he has to make a decision on troop levels to Afganistan--
> 
> This media coverage & awards por NADA--is getting a little ridiculous.



Except he made a small speech about it and that's it. He's not getting this award until December. So that point is stupid.


----------



## oreo (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > A SMART President would have "gracefully" said thanks but no thanks--especially since he has to make a decision on troop levels to Afganistan--
> ...



It's nothing more than whomever trying to "manipulate" the POTUS.  They actually nominated him two weeks after he was in office--

What-- based on tinglley feelings running up everyone's legs & "historic-perfectly pronouned SPEECHES-read from a teleprompter?'"-From ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN & of course the tingley feeling chanel aks Obama media outlet ofl MSN--NBC network---LOL.


*Hey with Obama it may work--With Bush or Reagan -during a time of war- they would have told the committee to shove it--LOL.*


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> , but they are, in no way, constrained from considering all his accomplishments after that date



And those were?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama won the award.  It surprised even him.  But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail.  Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that this presitigeous award has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?
> ...



I think they would say, "If it sounds too good to be true, then it is too good to be true."

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2009)

The award is the international rejection of the Bush years.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The award is the international rejection of the Bush years.



and you keep challenging Chris at being the champion idiot of this board.


----------



## Chris (Oct 10, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Not at all.

OReilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Joe Wilson,etc....

The pattern is obvious.

Just as most of the viewers of FoxNews are over 55 and white.....


----------



## oreo (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The award is the international rejection of the Bush years.
> ...



Ditto--we have got a neck & neck here to the finish line---


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

oreo said:


> Ditto--we have got a neck & neck here to the finish line---



Considering some of your comments, you seem to want to take the bronze.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> President Obama won the award.  It surprised even him.  But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail.  Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that* this presitigeous award *has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?


----------



## Meister (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Chris listen to what I have to say....Your full of shit. Can you comprehend what I'm saying.  Your the one bringing up racism no one else is...just you.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


more proof you are a moron


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> , but they are, in no way, constrained from considering all his accomplishments after that date



What, exactly, did he do in 10 days in office that snagged him the nomination in the first place?


----------



## maineman (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama won the award.  It surprised even him.  But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail.  Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that this presitigeous award has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?
> ...



how do you mean the word "partisan"?  Are you suggesting that the Nobel Prize Committee are all members of the democratic party?

And do you completely discount the fact that his speech in Cairo has set the stage for a whole new dialog between than world of Islam and the west?

do you completely discount the fact that his decision to NOT deploy a technologically unproven missile defense system in eastern europe caused russia to finally get on board supporting sanctions against iran which undoubtedly led to them agreeing to alllow un inspectors back into their country?

do you completely discount the fact that the WORLD is applauding Obama's outspoken desires to see a world free of nuclear weapons?

Ofr course you do... because you would rather agree with the taliban and al qaeda when they denigrate this award, because, for you, it was never about our country, but only and always about your republican party.

party over country....

treasonous hack, imo.

I took an oath to defend the constitution against people like you.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > , but they are, in no way, constrained from considering all his accomplishments after that date
> ...


this seems to be missed by most of the drooling obamabots


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...


what a load of steaming bullshit
and you can stick your last line up your fucking ass


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



They can't answer it because there isn't an answer.  So, he was given the booby prize because of what he 'promised'?  Fuckin' A.  The whole thing is nothing but a joke and most folks can see that.  The others  . . . . their tongue is stuck in lick mode.


----------



## Chris (Oct 10, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Pointing out racism is not racist.

Nice try, though.

The vitriol that is being thrown at Obama from the right for trying to provide healthcare for all Americans is largely the result of racism.

But the Republican Party is almost entirely built on the fear of people with brown skin.

From Reagan's "welfare queen", to Wille Horton, to Bin Laden, to Rev. Wright, to Obama, the Republican Party always tries to play on white fears of brown people. 

It's what they do.


----------



## maineman (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



who KNOWS or cares who wrote a letter to the Prize Committee nominating Obama?  That is totally irrelevant.  The fact remains.... somebody did, and then, after he was nominated, the committee has every right to consider his actions for the 365 days preceding the date of his receiving the award.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> The vitriol that is being thrown at Obama from the right for trying to provide healthcare for all Americans is largely the result of racism.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


i thought it was preceding the date of the close of nominations


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Dodge and duck....


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The vitriol that is being thrown at Obama from the right for trying to provide healthcare for all Americans is largely the result of racism.


yup he is that fucking stupid


----------



## maineman (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



the last line is the most important.  People like you who side with our enemies and denigrate our leaders deserve to be considered the enemies of the state that you really are.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The vitriol that is being thrown at Obama from the right for trying to provide healthcare for all Americans is largely the result of racism.



Yeah, Chris is youse guys albatross.

JenT is ours.

I don't hold it against you guys.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...


this isnt siding with our enemies, asshole
this is a coincidence that we agree on ONE issue, but for vastly different reasons


----------



## maineman (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


you thought wrong.

no surprise there.  traitor.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> yup he is that fucking stupid



Well-intentioned but comments like his there are both sweeping and stupid. A small small # of people in this Healthcare debate are doing this for racism. A small enough number that race has nothing to do with this.


----------



## maineman (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



you wouild rather denigrate our president along with the taliban for recieving a presitigious award than be proud of him for what such an award means for our nation.

traitor.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Fail.  You get nominated for what you_ have done_, what you have_ already accomplished_, not for what you might do.


----------



## Meister (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



   For the love of God.  How can a person argue with stupidity at the highest level?
Dive is right, Chris...your a moron.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


yeah no reason to be afraid of bin Laden.   You probably cheered when the towers collapsed, didn't you you little fuck
the twin towers were symbols of greed, weren't they you little cum guzzler?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...


Bullshit.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Please help me with this Maineman, what exactly had he done when he was nominated?

I'm sorry, but I feel that this award is at least a year too early.  I'm not saying that either next year or the year after he would not have deserved the recognition, but I truly believe that you are nominated for awards such as this for things that you have done, not things that you say you will do.

I believe that this award, not only cheapens the award itself but anything the President may do in the future regarding world peace.

And this is by no means the fault of the President.  It is the fault of those who nominated him and those who awarded the prize.

Immie


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...


fuck off asshole


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


yeah, how can obama be a champion of world peace when he is leading two wars?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > yup he is that fucking stupid
> ...


no, chris is that fucking stupid


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

If Obama is going to accept this award. He should have it given to the American Men and Women fighting overseas to keep us safe. Then, he should donate the prize money to a charity for Homeless Veterans or a cause relating to PTSD in the Military.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...


you are a fucking moron
you dont see that my comments have been that it was wrong of the nobel commitee and not the fault of Obama then you are a bigger fucking idiot than you are showing here

again, fuck off


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> If Obama is going to accept this award. He should have it given to the American Men and Women fighting overseas to keep us safe. Then, he should donate the prize money to a charity for Homeless Veterans or a cause relating to PTSD in the Military.



I wonder if he tithes.  how much money would Reverand Wright's church get?


----------



## Meister (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Not another mindless obamabot. 

by the way....I'm not a republican


----------



## maineman (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



again... why owuld any patriotic american spend a moment's time agreeing with the taliban and arguing with the nobel prize committee's decision to give their president the nobel peace prize? 

because they are either a partisan hack or a flat out traitor...or both. 

I'm betting on both


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> I wonder if he tithes.  how much money would Reverand Wright's church get?



 $0 since he doesn't go there anymore. In fact, you really don't hear about Obama and his new church now a days. I assume he still goes.

Though you know the holy water must burn. You know, with him being the Anti-Christ and all.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...


because the Taliban was correct when they said he didn't deserve it.  So wipe obama's semen off your face, ok, shitstain.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > If Obama is going to accept this award. He should have it given to the American Men and Women fighting overseas to keep us safe. Then, he should donate the prize money to a charity for Homeless Veterans or a cause relating to PTSD in the Military.
> ...



Can't tithe if you don't belong to a church; he doesn't.  He and the wife haven't 'found' one yet.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> again... why owuld any patriotic american spend a moment's time agreeing with the taliban and arguing with the nobel prize committee's decision to give their president the nobel peace prize?
> 
> because they are either a partisan hack or a flat out traitor...or both.
> 
> I'm betting on both



Dude, the TALIBAN DO NOT MATTER IN THIS CASE.

The Taliban also agree that 2+2 = 4 and there is such a thing called gravity. It doesn't make all math teachers and scientists traitors. Stop using such a stupid fucking argument.

There are better arguments than that. Find them.


----------



## maineman (Oct 10, 2009)

Meister said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



are you suggesting that the rules of the nobel prize committee preclue them from looking at any accomplishments of any nominees AFTER I Feb?

If so...please provide a link that supports that suggestion or...alternatively, stfu.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



I bet they still tithe to Rev Wright's church.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> Can't tithe if you don't belong to a church; he doesn't.  He and the wife haven't 'found' one yet.



A ha! Quick someone inform JenT and Allie! We need some holy water STAT!




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo_DMX5JfhQ&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Barack Obama - Antichrist[/ame]

The video is creepy and hilarious. Obama's eyes looks like Dr. Doom's eyes from_ Who Framed Roger Rabbit?_ Oh and he looks like he has ADD.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



and tell us what he has accomplished SINCE then besides doubling Bush's debt.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



AHEM---let me try to explain this again for the slower people among us.
Patriotic Americans and the Taliban have ENTIRELY differerent reason for scoffing at the Peace Prize committee.
stop being intentionally stupid


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Perhaps on the 'down low', eh?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...


actually, since you have made the claim that they can, wopuldnt that put the onus on YOU to provide the proof they can?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



I have been told you are a conservative and have seen little to dispute that.  Would you consider that President Bush was attempting to bring peace to Iraq by building up that nation or do you simply think he was a warmonger?

How about Afghanistan?  Was his goal there to bring about peace through strength or was it to kill innocent men, women and children?

If you would consider President Bush's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as having the ultimate goal peace in the middle east, how can you fault President Obama for using the same methods?

Immie


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...


*facepalm*

And if the Taliban said 2+2=4?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that the rules of the nobel prize committee preclue them from looking at any accomplishments of any nominees AFTER I Feb?
> 
> If so...please provide a link that supports that suggestion or...alternatively, stfu.



What were the reasons _for him being nominated _10 days after taking office?


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That's going to be a sticking point in Obama's unconditional negotiations with the Taliban.  Oh wait, he'll probably just be a bitch and concede that they're right because he agreed with them at the press briefing that he held the morning he received the award.  Some people just aren't paying attention.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...


Good God!

Deadline for nominations is February 1st.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


There must be plenty , He has written 2 auto biographies .


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> There must be plenty , He has written 2 auto biographies .



Can't fault a man for trying to make an extra cash through legal means. Only reason there was an second autobiography is because the first sold well.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Bush's ultimate goal was not peace in the middle east.  it was democracy in the middle east.  i wouldn't have given Bush a peace prize either.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


not for what he did in Iraq, but his AIDS relief to Africa would have qualified


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Yeah, but ultimately democracy really equals peace. Historically, democratic countries do not wage war upon each other.

Would I have given Bush a NPP? Hell no. His little Iraq adventure has done more to destabilize the region than Saddam ever could have hoped to....

Shit, just realized that I wouldn't talk anymore about Bush + Iraq. Nevermind.

But no, Bush didn't deserve it either. At any point in his life IMO. Clinton probably deserved it more. For both his accomplishments (and attempted accomplishments) while in office and his humanitarian efforts since.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



actually you are right.  He did more for AIDS relief than any other president.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Bush's ultimate goal was not peace in the middle east.  it was democracy in the middle east.  i wouldn't have given Bush a peace prize either.



"The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within," - Mohandas K. Gandhi.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Bush's ultimate goal was not peace in the middle east.  it was democracy in the middle east.  i wouldn't have given Bush a peace prize either.
> ...



how did it work in West Germany?  Wasn't it force on them?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> not for what he did in Iraq, but his AIDS relief to Africa would have qualified



It would of had qualified. However, considering his body of actions, he would of been disqualified.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah ok.  I think the way women are being treated there is a function of their culture, not whether Hussein is in power.
> ...




Then you stay behind and keep to yourself.....let the real believers in freedom continue the fight.........


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Eh, the seeds of democracy had been in place before Hitler. The Nazi's were just a detour.


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 10, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Consider a president who withdrew all of our fighting men from every foreign post in the world except for our embassies abroad.  Imagine the consequences of that.  What kind of power vacuum would we see?  Not that I'm against this because I think we are currently bankrupting our nation to defend ingrates who, in the absence of the need to defend their own nation, have become socialist democracies.  Do you know why we have little assistance from European nations in Afghanistan?  Because their bloated governments are too expensive for them to have a military that's worth a damn.  If we decline and withdraw as a world hegemon, as Obama seems to be intent on eventuating, there will be a vacuum the likes of which the world has not seen since WW2.  That is, the Nazi vacuum, that we hesitantly filled in the interest of peace.  Guess who will fill this new vacuum?  There are two choices:  Russia and China.  How do you think they'll do compared to us?  If you haven't noticed we're already setting up for this scenario.  Dismantling missile defense systems here, cancelling meetings with the Dahlai Lama there.  Our record isn't perfect, but the world will be apologizing to us when the PRC or Russia are running things across the pond.  It'll almost be worth turning the greatest country in the world into a banana republic just so I can say "I told you so", to uninformed idealistic robama zombies like yourself.  Of course, you probably won't live through the transition so I'll have to settle for pissing on your grave instead.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> how did it work in West Germany?  Wasn't it force on them?



Germany is a very delicate rarity. They had democracy before Hitler, they merely just received it back after Hitler.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > how did it work in West Germany?  Wasn't it force on them?
> ...



what about Japan?  they had never had democracy.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Eh, the seeds of democracy had been in place before Hitler. The Nazi's were just a detour.



You had beat me to it but I didn't see it due to the page change. You are correct.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Oct 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> All this whinning by the pussies on the right is wonderful.
> 
> It's going to be a great eight years.



You are fucking delusional.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> what about Japan?  they had never had democracy.



It came from within. However, do recall that they do have a Constitutional Monarchy.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



Yes it was, but I don't think the democracy was brought about from within in 1945


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



I disagree.

The German people wanted it and were ready for it. Too bad those in the East had a to wait a bit longer.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Yes it was, but I don't think the democracy was brought about from within in 1945



Remember, Gandhi was referring to the spirit of Democracy. The spirit of Democracy and actual Democracy are two different things. We can bring Democracy to these countries however the spirit won't be there. Which is why when we leave Afghanistan and Iraq, those Governments will fold like a deck of cards.


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



so did they change their minds when hitler committed suicide?  he had the Germans' respect until the very end until he committed suicide.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> so did they change their minds when hitler committed suicide?  he had the Germans' respect until the very end until he committed suicide.



Once they learned Hitler committed suicide supposedly, he lost their respect. They saw him as this great leader who fought to the end. Ironically, if he had gone down being shot at, he would of been turned into a Martyr by many of the German people. Instead, he was a coward.

Although to be quite honest, I don't think the Soviets ever nabbed Hitler. I think he got away and that they didn't want to admit that he slipped through their fingers.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah ok.  I think the way women are being treated there is a function of their culture, not whether Hussein is in power.
> ...





Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it was, but I don't think the democracy was brought about from within in 1945
> ...



You are probably correct, that is why we stayed in Germany & Japan, and why we should stay in Iraq & Afghanistan......


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



No, they pretty much lost it in the middle of the war. '43 and '44 at the latest. But by then it was too late by a long shot. Read some of the accounts of the Germans who lived under Hitler. Quite a few of them wanted the Nazi's out. But since the Nazi's had a, well, pretty direct method of dealing with those who they thought posed a threat they (the people) pretty much just hunkered down and decided to wait it out.

I mean, look at the attempts on Hitler's life by his own staff, and their thoughts on his regime. While possibly not Democratic in nature, they damn sure realized that Hitler was doing more harm to Germany by '43 than actually doing anything to advance Germany. Hell, look how quickly they agreed to an unconditional surrender after he killed himself.

Sure, there are lots of people who went along with Hitler's delusions. Both among the populace and the high command, but there definitely was a rising tide of resentment against the Nazis towards the end of the war.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> You are probably correct, that is why we stayed in Germany & Japan, and why we should stay in Iraq & Afghanistan......



Except in Germany and Japan we weren't fighting against an entire culture. In Afghanistan and Iraq we are. Germany had Democracy before Hitler for example too.

Besides, it took two atomic bombs to get Japan to change it's tune. Do you say we should do the same to these two countries? 

Germany/Japan and Afghanistan/Iraq are four entirely different situations but comparing the first two to the second two is apples to oranges.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Sure it wasn't oil?  

/ducks  

I thought the goal was to bring about peace... through democracy.  But I agree, I would not have given the award to President Bush.

Immie


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



The soldiers on the eastern front were furious when they heard about von Staffenberg's assassination/coup attempt.  The plan was to kill Hitler, make peace with the western allies, and continue the slaughter in the east.  Maybe there were differences between soldiers and civilians.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > so did they change their minds when hitler committed suicide?  he had the Germans' respect until the very end until he committed suicide.
> ...



I disagree. They lost respect of Hitler much earlier than that. But they feared him and his regime. Their desire to live free did not get a chance to outweigh their fear of him before he killed himself and essentially ended the war. Therefore there was no real active resistance to speak of against the Nazi's within Germany. But I believe if the war had slogged on like WWI did, that eventually an attempt on Hitler's life would have succeeded, and, well....who knows from there.

Getting pretty deep into pure conjecture here. But bottom line is that IMO the German people did want democracy, and were ready for it by the end of the war. It wasn't just a light switch that got thrown when Hitler ate his gun.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> But no, Bush didn't deserve it either. At any point in his life IMO. Clinton probably deserved it more. For both his accomplishments (and attempted accomplishments) while in office and his humanitarian efforts since.



I agree and I wonder if President Clinton has been nominated, if he was nominated this year and since he was clearly more deserving than President Obama by 2/1/9, why he did not get the award rather than President Obama.

Immie


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Bush's goal was peace through democracy.  Cheney and others?


----------



## Meister (Oct 10, 2009)

maineman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



I see you don't comprehend the English language.  What I am suggesting is that your a mindless obamabot.  Don't try and read between the lines...no need to, it's basic English.  Soooo....STFU.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> I disagree. They lost respect of Hitler much earlier than that. But they feared him and his regime. Their desire to live free did not get a chance to outweigh their fear of him before he killed himself and essentially ended the war. Therefore there was no real active resistance to speak of against the Nazi's within Germany. But I believe if the war had slogged on like WWI did, that eventually an attempt on Hitler's life would have succeeded, and, well....who knows from there.
> 
> Getting pretty deep into pure conjecture here. But bottom line is that IMO the German people did want democracy, and were ready for it by the end of the war. It wasn't just a light switch that got thrown when Hitler ate his gun.



Looking back and reading history, I was shocked that Hitler wasn't killed. 42 attempts on that monster's life. No wonder why many Germans believed him when he said it was a sign that God wanted him to continue his cause. (Not that I believe he did).


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



The fact that thousands were arrested and hundreds were executed in the aftermath of the coup shows that it wasn't just a small group of people who were dissatisfied with the way things were going. And this was within the military itself. German soldiers who were trained to obey without question. So imagine what dissident thoughts that civilians had about the Nazi regime by then.

Like I said, getting pretty deep into conjecture here. But IMO the dissatisfaction of the Nazi regime, and the yearning for democracy, didn't just start when Hitler died.

Now, I gotta go record the news and lay down for a nap. Back in the morning.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



You have me pegged wrong.

I am not stating that President Obama should have won this award.  I don't agree with President Obama.  I did not vote for President Obama.

Elvis was questioning how I could say that President Obama might be worthy of the nomination in the future, which when you review the list of recent winners, you cannot deny that he might be as worthy as some of them were.  

I do not believe that President Bush was worthy of the award.

My questions to elvis were to point out that applying strength to a region such as Iraq or Afghanistan were not necessarily anti-peace, if the goal was in fact to bring about peace.

Immie

PS Please don't piss on my grave.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > You are probably correct, that is why we stayed in Germany & Japan, and why we should stay in Iraq & Afghanistan......
> ...



Yes they are different, yet not to the extent of _"apples to oranges"_....

Do you believe we should walk away and let your claim happen? 

I believe the challenge is to stay and learn to understand & respect these very different cultures, are you suggesting that we have not been able to co-exist with other Muslim cultures? 

If we leave and witness the house of cards scenario, which is worst, staying or leaving? History suggest staying is the correct choice,,,,

Germany & Japan had more sophisticated societies than either one of these countries, making our presence more tolerable, I believe more than anything else, we have become too comfortable with our own existence and forget too easily what a struggle it was to become the leader of the free world.....


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



What about the comparisons between Iran and Nazi Germany/Munich?  is that apples to oranges?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> Yes they are different, yet not to the extent of _"apples to oranges"_....
> 
> Do you believe we should walk away and let your claim happen?
> 
> ...



Yes, I do believe we should walk away from Afghanistan and Iraq lest we become like the USSR did.

We can co-exist with Muslims. However, Democracy and Sharia law can not co-exist. Only naive people believe that. For example, in both these countries, Sharia law is winning.

Also, Germany and Japan were not in half as bad conditions as Afghanistan and Iraq are. Japan only had what we bombed wrong which wasn't that much. Germany took a long time to recover only because it was divided. Afghanistan and Iraq need total reform.

These countries don't want leaders. They want people who make their law continue to stay in power. Why do you think the Afghanistan Constitution now is taking away woman right after woman right that we installed after we began to occupy? Do you not see the eroding of women's rights in both countries?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



But that was what I was trying to say... peace through democracy.  Some would claim that in order to bring about peace one must, at times, use force.  I'm not sure I agree with that philosophy, but it seems to be the method applied by President Bush.

I do not for a minute believe that President Bush had war on the top of his list of preferences when he asked for authorization to take this country to war.  His ultimate goal was peace and that through force if necessary.

Immie


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 10, 2009)

What about the comparisons between Iran and Nazi Germany/Munich?  is that apples to oranges?[/QUOTE]

And what specific comparison are you referring to?


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> What about the comparisons between Iran and Nazi Germany/Munich?  is that apples to oranges?



And what specific comparison are you referring to?[/QUOTE]

actually I think Bush used it but said "Poland" instead. Is letting Iran develop a nuke without invading it the same as Neville Chamberlain at Munich?


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...





elvis3577 said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > What about the comparisons between Iran and Nazi Germany/Munich?  is that apples to oranges?
> ...



actually I think Bush used it but said "Poland" instead. Is letting Iran develop a nuke without invading it the same as Neville Chamberlain at Munich?[/QUOTE]

I am afraid it is, do you suggest that Obama is our modern day Chamberlain?


----------



## elvis (Oct 10, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



I am afraid it is, do you suggest that Obama is our modern day Chamberlain?[/QUOTE]

Well he could be.  People forget that Chamberlain was VERY popular immediately after Munich.  "peace in our time"


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 10, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Conjecture indeed!!!!

You seem to be under the impression that the public was privvy to all of the bad things happening in Germany during the war.  Quite the opposite was happening I can assure you.  The people were not prepared for the bombing raids and destruction of their country by Allied Air Forces.  When it began happening Hitlers regime turned this to their advantage and still had complete control over the population right up until the Russians invaded German territory.  The losses to our air forces was MASSIVE and accounted for 60% of Allied combat deaths.  This was a huge morale booster for Germany.  They were under the impression they were still winning.
and then there is this little tidbit...if this subject is of interest to you I would suggest reading some of these references:
WWII - Europe - Germany - German Resistance - A-I
The German resistance was alive and well but the Gestapo was quite skilled in counterintelligence and counterinsurgency warfare.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they are different, yet not to the extent of _"apples to oranges"_....
> ...



So you want to leave? I thought you were concerned about women's rights??


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> So you want to leave? I thought you were concerned about women's rights??



Can you just respond to my posts without putting inside my own quotes? Do you have any idea how annoying it is to try and respond to your post? 

As for your questions, yes I am concerned about women's right and yes I think we should leave. At this point, the only way that women will have rights in Afghanistan and Iraq is if we force the people's hands. Considering this goes against their entire culture, who do you think will win on that one?


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 10, 2009)

> Also, Germany and Japan were not in half as bad conditions as Afghanistan and Iraq are. Japan only had what we bombed wrong which wasn't that much. Germany took a long time to recover only because it was divided. Afghanistan and Iraq need total reform.



OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What kind of statement is this!!!!  What school did you go to?


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they are different, yet not to the extent of _"apples to oranges"_....
> ...





elvis3577 said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Well he could be.  People forget that Chamberlain was VERY popular immediately after Munich.  "peace in our time"[/QUOTE]

"peace in our time" what a great line.....problem we face though are countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.....

When I was much younger I believed that was all we needed, then Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall and I had hope we could get there, now we have another potential Chamberlain, maybe this is the cycle we have to go through......


----------



## Modbert (Oct 11, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> What kind of statement is this!!!!  What school did you go to?



It's my opinion. Germany was worse than Afghanistan and Iraq. However, Japan wasn't. Afghanistan and Iraq were so bad after what we did that it has taken more then six years and people still don't have water and electricity.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > So you want to leave? I thought you were concerned about women's rights??
> ...



Well it is a good thing our founding fathers had a different view about the British Empire....


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> rubberhead said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Oh.  My bad.  I really just had to get that off my chest anyway.  Sorry I lashed out at you.  It's entirely possible that Obama might eventually earn this award.  Of course I would have to be completely wrong for that to be the case.  Nothing would make me happier.


----------



## Chris (Oct 11, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



"peace in our time" what a great line.....problem we face though are countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.....

When I was much younger I believed that was all we needed, then Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall and I had hope we could get there, now we have another potential Chamberlain, maybe this is the cycle we have to go through......[/QUOTE]

Bush Sr. was president when the Berlin Wall fell.

Not Reagan.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



Bush Sr. was president when the Berlin Wall fell.

Not Reagan.[/QUOTE]

Your short on knowledge, is that all your short on?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Also, Germany and Japan were not in *half as bad conditions *as Afghanistan and Iraq are. Japan only had what we bombed wrong which wasn't that much. Germany took a long time to recover only because it was divided. Afghanistan and Iraq need total reform.


 are you fucking serious?
i guess you didnt hear much about the fire bombing of Dresden and Berlin and Tokyo and the rest of both of those countries
we practically bombed them into the fucking stone age
in Iraq there was still a lot of infrastructure unharmed from out bombing because we didnt just bomb everything
same for Ajghanistan
you either dont know the history of WWII or you have no clue the types of bombing that were done in the places being discussed


----------



## Modbert (Oct 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> are you fucking serious?
> i guess you didnt hear much about the fire bombing of Dresden and Berlin and Tokyo and the rest of both of those countries
> we practically bombed them into the fucking stone age
> in Iraq there was still a lot of infrastructure unharmed from out bombing because we didnt just bomb everything
> ...



See Post #1057 of this thread.

I know certain parts of Japan were bombed back into the stone age obviously, but not as much as you seem to be saying.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > are you fucking serious?
> ...


you gotta be kidding
LOL
there were daily bombing runs on Japan
nearly every city and at that time they had a lot of housing that was made mostly out of paper


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 11, 2009)

here is a source to help your education
The Strategic Bombing of Japan October 1944 - August 1945 - World War II Multimedia Database


----------



## Modbert (Oct 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> you gotta be kidding
> LOL
> there were daily bombing runs on Japan
> nearly every city and at that time they had a lot of housing that was made mostly out of paper



I know there were daily bombing runs on Japan. I haven't actually looked at the amount of damage done yet in my researching history. Though I actually will be ironically for my term paper this semester for a class.

U.S. and Japan Relations (1937-1952)

Edit: Thanks for the link.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 11, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



Why do you think I specifically put it in the timeframe of '43 and '44????

By then the German people had the ability to see the writing on the wall, no matter how much of a stranglehold the government had on the media. And many did see what was coming. Didn't really do anything about it, but they could see what was coming...


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...



A little backwards Dogbert.

We definitely bombed Japan and Germany a helluva more, and destroyed a helluva lot more than we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. Exponentially so. No such thing as smart bombs then. It wasn't unheard of to destroy an entire city just to hit one military target.

No. Whats holding back Afghanistan is that there wasn't much infrastructure before the war. Not that it was destroyed. It just wasn't there for the most part. So the populace sees no real need to "get on it" and make something that they did just fine without before.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



I'm sorry...I saw no reference to '43 &'44.  However I will stick by my original statement and the reason why I say this is that the German Army continued to fight until the last man up until the capture of the Reichstag.  The battle for Berlin was fought by civilians who were infirmed, young and even women.  That hardly sounds like a demoralized public who wanted Democracy.  Yes...when U.S. troops arrived in recaptured European cities and towns they were greated as heros but there wasn't any reception for them in a single German city or town other than a bullet or a land mine.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > You figured out a way to agree with me but disagree.
> ...



So in effect what you originally said was not true, to which I responded that you don't know what you're talking about.

You may know something but you keep exaggerating the facts. 

I think your last post is close to being accurate and the one I responded to earlier was pretty much just something you made up.

You seem to have this habit of saying something that appears misinformed and then when someone sets you straight on the facts you claim you already knew it and almost totally change your response thus floating your argument so not to appear foolish.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of fit don't you think.
> ...



I remember...........I was just fishing to see which dipshit would bite first.....looking for the right person to respond and of course you did.

If the shoe fits....wear it.

By the way, Coyote is annoying but not to the level that you are. You're one of those sellect few I would love to meet in person.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



I think some of it had to do with the price of oil as well.

Course some folks wouldn't want you to be aware of that.

The USSR makes alot of their money from arms sales and from oil. They lost a war and people slowed down on buying their arms and started buying them elsewhere. Couple that with the tanking of oil prices.....with a weak Soviet economy it didn't take much.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > No, Viet Nam and Korea are wars in and of themselves.  The Cold War gets its name because it is a cold war.  (WTF?)
> ...



We were actually fighting Chinese soldiers in Korea. Korea would have been over with in months but the Chinese feared an invasion so they flooded the north with hundreds of thousands of troops and nearly pushed us off the peninsula entirely. 

In Vietnam we were fighting the NVA and the Vietcong. Vietnam was more of a battle against insurgency. We still had hundreds of thousand of troops involved on the ground. Korea was only different from other wars because our Congress refused to declare war thus dragging it out until it ended in a cease fire. Korea was the first war that we refused to officially acknowledge thus starting the trend that continues today.

A true proxy war was when we used the Northern Alliance to take out the Taliban after 9/11. We used a minimum of our own troops in that war. Iran is currently fighting a proxy war in Iraq and in Israel and did so in Somalia.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > If they did, all hell is about to break loose in Afghanistan!
> ...



Like there weren't any before.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > people fail to acknowledge that the prize committee may have received Obama's nomination by 1 FEB 09, but they are, in no way, constrained from considering all his accomplishments after that date and before the date that they announced their decision.
> ...



I think the timing is a little suspect. 

He needed something to stop him from tanking in the polls and he's so lacking in self-confidence that he can't stand being laughed at. 

So what better way to patch up his damaged image then to get a prize that should be reserved for someone that has accomplished great things.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...


Now there is some airtight logic.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

maineman said:


> President Obama won the award.  It surprised even him.  But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail.  Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that this presitigeous award has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?



I wonder why this in particular is an incredible moment in history.

He wasn't the first sitting president to receive the award.

The fact that his qualifications were nonexistent when he was nominated cheapens the award.

The only people that think this is a great thing seem to be starry-eyed misinformed Obamanites. Many people that still support him recognize this as a total sham.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Sorry, but one should ask the question 'Why now'.

When is this award normally awarded? Why did they choose to award it right after Obama fucked up in Denmark? What was the real purpose for this selection?

Why would they award a man who seems to live off of causing strife rather then bringing people together? A man who has divided this country even more then Bush.

His speeches seem to be geared toward offering peace to the world at the same time they cause us to fight among ourselves. I don't think a thing he's done has brought peace anywhere. There is no evidence of anything he's done has brought peace anywhere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 11, 2009)

LOL. If the Conservatives were not flooding the airwaves and the net with indignity, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, it would not be that big of a thing. You fellow have made it an event. LOL


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 11, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. If the Conservatives were not flooding the airwaves and the net with indignity, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, it would not be that big of a thing. You fellow have made it an event. LOL



Sure, that must be it. 'Cuz a prominent American and the leader of the freeworld winning one of the most prestigious awards in the world is_ SOOOOoooo _not a news story.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. If the Conservatives were not flooding the airwaves and the net with indignity, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, it would not be that big of a thing. You fellow have made it an event. LOL



actually the norwegians did by making such a silly choice but who cares about another symbol of excellence being turned into trash, huh?


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Ask the award committee:  Thorbjoern Jagland,  Sissel Roenbeck, Aagot Valle,  Kaci Kullman Five, and Inger-Marie Ytterhorn.

Here ya go:  comments@nobelprize.org


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 11, 2009)

Apparently there is a lot of that going around....in public schools now even the losers of competitions and sporting events get big trophys...so they retain their self esteem and don't go Columbine....it's almost like Obama's ratings were plummeting, healthcare is still questionable, the war in Afghanistan is going badly so they gave this award to him in the hope that it would boost his standing here in the U.S.A.

What I like is the latest distractor to get people's mind off of a failed war strategy and the 1 trillion dollar healthcare plan that will erase the budget deficit.....Gays in the Military is back in the news.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama won the award.  It surprised even him.  But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail.  Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that this presitigeous award has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?
> ...



BINGO.....it's because he's BLACK.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I don't think Glenn Beck is an Old White Guy.

He's a fairly young fat white guy.

Still, your statement was akin to saying all Blacks love fried chicken and watermelon.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



That's like a mouse farting in the wind to them.

You honestly feel I'll get any answers on a comment blog?


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



The award committee was selected by the Norwegian Parliament.  A socialist Parliament picked the first socialist American President for the prize....


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Well, THEY are the ones responsible for this, no one else.

Fart away.  You're doing the equivalent here.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...





Stereotypes:


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Seeing racism where none exists is racism.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



In case you didn't know that is what message boards are for.

Nothing we discuss here will change anything.

I wonder if you even considered that fact. 

Commenting on the award at that site is even less effective then commenting on it here.

How's that for a dose of reality.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2009)

I think we need to kick Norway's ass and boycott cod liver oil.  Wait---put the UN in charge of deciding who gets awards !!!


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


And the reality suggests no one here knows the answer you are hoping to cull, your protestations inferring *he* had something to do with it notwithstanding.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I think it is a good possibility.

Infer what you want from that.

Protestations is an inaccurate word. There are very few among us that say that Obama deserved the award. I think what I've done is point out what is obvious to most of us who remain open-minded. The acutual motivations for the awarding of the prize at this moment are another issue. I seriously doubt Obama knew nothing or was totally taken by surprise by this.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Going from saying he may not have deserved the award to inferring he had an actual hand in it 
is a mighty wide leap few have catapulted themselves.

That didn't stop you though from your acrobatic thrust.

No sirreeebob.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2009)

Call in Eots and Terrel---NOW !


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Call in Eots and Terrel---NOW !




Pronto!


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



In other words according to you *I'm not allowed to speculate the timing nor the motivations for the award.*

Thanks for enlightening me.

I'll take it under advisement.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

This award has become a laughingstock even among many liberals.

And he piles on top of this joke of an award with his proclamations of false modesty and being totally taken by surprise.

It's laughable in the extreme.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Well, I might agree with something like that if the nominations closed last week after his rankings in the polls had fallen, but at the time of the close of nominations he was the messiah of the Democratic Party.  He was nominated long before the polls began to dip, so I don't see how you can claim that this was done because he needed to be boosted in the polls.

Immie


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


And there you go again...taking grand leaps. That's a  lotta gymnastic work on a slow Sunday mornin.'

So who is disallowing you?  Who even mentioned anything like that?  Not me.

You are allowed to make as big a fool of yourself as you possibly can.

In fact, I encourage it.  

Carry on.  

;D


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I don't agree with the premise. But it is possible. Nominations were closed in February, however the voting for who would win it didn't close until October...1st I believe?

Kinda like the time between a primary and a general election. Pretty much same concept.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



And by taking everything I say to extremes you show yourself to be equally foolish.

I was stating how you came across, so take it for what it is.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Exactly.

People who think the time between nomination and actual awarding is somehow lost in vacuumland are off their rocker.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Yeah. But he still didn't do anything NPP-worthy during that time either.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


I feel pretty confident the record of our exchange speaks for itself, whistle of the mudded one.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



vulcan logic, obviously.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



But, if they were going to do this... now hear me out... they would have actually had to have believed that his ratings would have plummeted.  You don't honestly believe that whoever nominated him, would have thought that he would sink so low so fast now do you?    In time to get him nominated?  I doubt it.

Immie


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Of course not. Which is why I said I reject the premise. I was simply pointing out that the timing still works.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


Perhaps. 

I do so enjoy witnessing the collective heads of the right wingers exploding since though.
 Boom!
Now that's  mighty riproarious accomplishment!



*Clink*  To the Norwegians! lol.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



IMO there is no perhaps about it.

Maybe in a year...more likely two or three he will have done something to deserve it. But now? No way.


----------



## Murf76 (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Sorry, but one should ask the question 'Why now'.
> 
> When is this award normally awarded? Why did they choose to award it right after Obama fucked up in Denmark? What was the real purpose for this selection?
> 
> ...



Exactly.  The question is... 'WHY?'

One would think that even the Kool-Aid swillers would take insult to having their intelligence so sorely abused.  But... alas... they don't even appear to be even mildly curious.

Certainly the Nobel Committee would have anticipated a certain amount of criticism in their selection.  Afterall, they bypassed candidates who'd spent YEARS in prison, people who had risked life and limb in the cause of peace, to select a guy with little to no accomplishment.  They gambled against their own credibility in order to affect... what? 

People don't commit to action without a REASON.  Hell, we don't even get up off the couch save we've got a reason to do it.  So... why would the Nobel Committee risk making  themselves into a global laughingstock if they didn't expect the gamble to pay off?  What were they after?

It doesn't take a thinking person long to tick off a number of things which could potentially be manipulated by artificially inflating Barack Obama's diplomatic stature.  Two spring directly to mind.  The first being the War on Terror.  Right now, our war policy concerning Afghanistan is undecided.  Unbelievable as that might be  when one considers we've got troops DYING on the ground for lack of reinforcement while Barack dithers away. 

The second is our 2010 election. Socialist Democrats rise and fall with Obama.  Keeping them in power weakens the United States and forwards the socialist agenda worldwide.  As things stand now, given their poll numbers and their proclivity for spending us blind, they're likely to find themselves on the endangered species list come 2010.  This faux-legitimization of  Obama is a seal of approval on his policies and spreads the glory to his hangers-on. 

All in all... Americans should be outraged that these assholes are trying to manipulate our internal politics from outside our borders.  And sure, the Nobel Committee has suffered a loss of prestige in selecting a guy who didn't deserve the award... but it's more nefarious than the idea that they did it because they were starstruck.  They're not imbeciles.  They expected something in exchange for their loss of stature.

I've encountered alot of folks over the past couple of days who think it's a piddling matter and that we ought to move on to more potent discussion... but honestly, I think Eurotrash eggheads trying to fuck with our minds and our policy is something we ought to recognize for what it is.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> What confuses me the most about this is why people have so much weight into this award in the first place?
> 
> I keep seeing Carter, Yasser, and Gore brought up. So obviously those people didn't have much weight on this award beforehand I would assume.
> 
> As for the award itself, once again, Alfred Nobel, "The Merchant of Death", the inventor of Dynamite, created these awards to save his legacy. So I guess a lot of people do not see the irony in that.



so what....dynamite has many good uses...


----------



## Maple (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Yes, cheers to them for pointing out just one more comparison to the weakest and worst President in the history of the U.S and another Nobel peace prize winner and that is JIMMY CARTER.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



But, some may believe that which is why I pointed it out.

I do not know who nominated him, but I can just see Nancy Pelosi (I don't think she is even allowed to make the nomination but just follow the point here) throwing the President's name into the hat for this award and thinking "I had better do this today because in October the President is going to need a boost in his ratings".  And then after all that, come the final days for the voting on this they would have to convince the committee members that President Obama needed their help.

This award is ludicrous, but I can't imagine how they could have planned for even the need for such an award so early in his Presidency.

Immie


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


After listening to the Awarding Norwegians  talk about it the other night, explaining they _have_ given the award in the past based on what they _hoped_ for peace, and those working to _create an atmosphere that make peace possible_ -it made sense.

I don't have to agree with it, nor do you - or  anyone.  But it has been awarded in past that way on occasion, and that's what they decided to do this time.

Why it has people in such a kerfuffle, I don't understand.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



There was one of them kerfluffle things when Arafat got it too.


----------



## Murf76 (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> Why it has people in such a kerfuffle, I don't understand.



It doesn't bother you that a bunch of socialist weinies are trying to manipulate our war policy or our politics? 

I find that kind of weird, considering that my immediate reaction would be to tell them to stuff it and to mind their own goddam business.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


No one know who made the nominations.

For all we know, it could have been a Social Science professor in Kenya. 

;/


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



To keep this in perspective, while nominations may be submitted by politicians and scholars from all over the world, the short list and final selection is made by five Norwegian politicians advised by a small group of Norwegian university professors, so it is reasonable to think the final selection tells us more about Norwegian politics and opinion than about anything else.  Why do we care?

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/members/


----------



## mal (Oct 11, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> so what....dynamite has many good uses...



Without it, we would never had had this:









peace...


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Look.....this guy and his crew have made it a policy to lie and mislead the general population. He has been caught in a number of lies.

To be more to the point I think he is almost totally incapable of being 100% honest about anything.

So forgive me if I question what he says or what is truly behind this or any other issue that comes up from now on.

Only a fool takes the Obama Administration at face value.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 11, 2009)

1123 posts in one thread...holy shit!


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



As I stated, I have no idea who made the nomination.  I used Nancy Pelosi as an example to point out how preposterous the idea was.

But this leads me to a question.  How do we even know that anyone nominated him at all?  How do we know that it was not simply the committee that decided to award him the prize in order to achieve their own goals?

George W. Bush won the election in 2000 although some left wingers steal contend that the election was stolen.  How do we know that it was not?  For that matter, how do we know that George Washington won the election to become the first President of the U.S. or that any of the other President's won their elections.  

We trust those who count the votes... why?  Have they done anything to earn our trust?  Same thing goes for the Peace Prize committee.  How do we honestly know that anyone nominated Barack Obama before 2/1/09?

Now in all truthfulness, it really doesn't matter, but that award has always been a prestigious award but it cheapens the award when people who do not deserve it are presented with it.  It is like giving the Super Bowl trophy to the Detroit Lions last year when they didn't win a single game simply because we feel sorry for them.  What would the Lombardi Trophy mean to Detroit then?

Immie


----------



## mal (Oct 11, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> 1123 posts in one thread...holy shit!








Nope, that's Holy Shit...



peace...


----------



## Murf76 (Oct 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Why do we care?



We care because it's a snake-oil marketing ploy designed to bamboozle the young and politically impressionable amongst us.  It's an artificial inflation of Barack Obama's credibility meant to influence our foreign policy and our democratic elections.

These eggheads BYPASSED candidates who had actually accomplished something in favor of their stated  _"hope"_ that Barry might one day have an accomplishment of his own.
  And... they wagered their own prestige in order to do it, knowing there would be criticism.  

That's meaningful.

They are attempting to manipulate us.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 11, 2009)

Murf76 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Why do we care?
> ...



That may well be their intent, but why do we care?  I mean, can you think of any other subject, with the possible exception of sardines, on which we say, "Hmmm, I just can't make up my mind until I hear what the Norwegians have to say about this."?


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

And the lesson to be learned is...

Never underestimate the power of 5 spunky Norwegians with an infectious case of premature acclamation.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I have no doubt that one of his suckups nominated him.

Anyone can get nominated. Rush Limbaugh was nominated.


----------



## DavidS (Oct 11, 2009)

On the same day that the US declared war on the moon by bombing it, Obama wins the Peace Prize? I bet the Lunararians aren't too pleased about this!


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> And the lesson to be learned is...
> 
> Never underestimate the power of 5 spunky Norwegians with an infectious case of premature acclamation.



No matter how much spunk they got on themselves, I'd argue we are overestimating the power of these excitable Norwegians.  What we have learned is that no matter how well Obama's speeches may translate into Norwegian, they don't translate very well into accomplishments, and this award is unlikely to change that fact.


----------



## Murf76 (Oct 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> That may well be their intent, but why do we care?  I mean, can you think of any other subject, with the possible exception of sardines, on which we say, "Hmmm, I just can't make up my mind until I hear what the Norwegians have to say about this."?



We care because it actually IS an effective political strategy, which WILL influence Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan and WILL cozen a percentage of American voters into believing Obama's policies are more credible than they actually are.

Forums like this one are filled to the brim with _political junkies_.  We eat, breathe, and shit this stuff.  But we're the minority.  The average American gets snippets of political news here and there.  They don't delve into the WHY of it all.

Now, giving Obama the NPP isn't going to win the day for global socialists.  But it IS an unwarranted and incremental interference into American politics... a mind-fuck perpetrated upon our people.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > And the lesson to be learned is...
> ...


The majority I see overestimating their power is the American right wingers.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 11, 2009)

Murf76 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > That may well be their intent, but why do we care?  I mean, can you think of any other subject, with the possible exception of sardines, on which we say, "Hmmm, I just can't make up my mind until I hear what the Norwegians have to say about this."?
> ...



I disagree.  If this prize benefits anyone, it will be Republicans who will use it to highlight the great disparity between the expectations Obama's speeches create and the lack of accomplishments he delivers.  I think for most Americans this award will only serve to make the Nobel committee look foolish.


----------



## Murf76 (Oct 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> I disagree.  If this prize benefits anyone, it will be Republicans who will use it to highlight the great disparity between the expectations Obama's speeches create and the lack of accomplishments he delivers.  I think for most Americans this award will only serve to make the Nobel committee look foolish.



That only works on the politically educated.  If we don't use this opportunity to openly ridicule the Nobel Committee, to MAKE them the global laughingstocks they risked being... they succeed in elevating Barack Obama to the stature of Mother Theresa. 

If we allow this high-handed manipulation to pass without mainstreaming the truth of it, to the point where even the most politically naive amongst us can see it for what it is... they win.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



rush limbaugh was not nominated.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


That statement cannot be said with absolute accuracy.

The nominations are kept secret for 50 years.

(Though I doubt he was)


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

The poster might be referring to the idiot Mark Levin nominating Limbaugh last year.

It was a joke.  Levine was not a recognized nominator.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

Murf76 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree.  If this prize benefits anyone, it will be Republicans who will use it to highlight the great disparity between the expectations Obama's speeches create and the lack of accomplishments he delivers.  I think for most Americans this award will only serve to make the Nobel committee look foolish.
> ...



If a populace expects to be uneducated and free, it expects what never was and never will be. - Thomas Jefferson

There are many people who think Obama has a vision of hope for America. These people are ignorant of history and blinded by hate.
Should Obama pass his plans.
 they will be very difficult to undue ,

* the Nation will be lost to a tyranny of needs and wants.*


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> The poster might be referring to the idiot Mark Levin nominating Limbaugh last year.
> 
> It was a joke.  Levine was not a recognized nominator.



you are right, with both posts. technically i will have to wait 50 years before i can prove that limbaugh was not nominated.

i can now prove that stalin was nominated.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> rush limbaugh was not nominated.


Limbaugh Nobel Peace Prize - HUMAN EVENTS


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > rush limbaugh was not nominated.
> ...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ma-wins-nobel-peace-prize-57.html#post1603639


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > rush limbaugh was not nominated.
> ...




get acquainted with the nomination process, and who qualifies as nominator.

here


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> The poster might be referring to the idiot Mark Levin nominating Limbaugh last year.
> 
> It was a joke.  Levine was not a recognized nominator.



Mark R. Levin grew up in Philadelphia, PA and holds a B.A. from Temple University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. Levin also earned a J*.D*. from the Temple University Beasley School of Law.

Qualified Nominators
The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:

1.	Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
2.	Members of international courts;
3.	University rectors; *professors* of social sciences, history, philosophy, *law* and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
4.	Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
5.	Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
6.	Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
7.	Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.
The Nobel Peace Prize may also be awarded to institutions and associations.
Landmark Legal Foundation Nominates Rush Limbaugh for 2007 Nobel Peace Prize


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


get acquainted with the nomination process, and who qualifies as nominator.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1603671-post1144.html


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The poster might be referring to the idiot Mark Levin nominating Limbaugh last year.
> ...


Yes, dippy, nominators can be professors, but not all professors can be nominators.

You have to have received an invitation to nominate to do so. Idjit.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:
Law professors .
Mark Levin is a law professor.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...









For the slower amongst us: 

See:  Number One.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:
> Law professors .
> Mark Levin is a law professor.



law professors, as i understand can nominate.

now where is mark levin teaching, at which university?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

the "nomination" of limbaugh was done by the Landmark Legal Foundation, of which Levin is president, woohoo. he did not nominate as law professor, but as president of a "conservative public interest law firm".

levin is certainly not this:



> director of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes



and if you cannot show that levin is a law professor, then no qualification as nominator, hence no nomination.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:
> Law professors .
> Mark Levin is a law professor.




I think the Fit-nah needs a syllogism.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> the "nomination" of limbaugh was done by the Landmark Legal Foundation, of which Levin is president, woohoo. he did not nominate as law professor, but as president of a "conservative public interest law firm".
> 
> levin is certainly not this:
> 
> ...


You have to receive a special invitation to be qualified to nominate. 

The qualifications are not _simply_ being a law professor, or in fact even a member of a national assembly.


----------



## rubberhead (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Looks like a Nobel Prize swirling around in a toilet.


----------



## asaratis (Oct 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


The Nobel committee has looked foolish for years already.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > the "nomination" of limbaugh was done by the Landmark Legal Foundation, of which Levin is president, woohoo. he did not nominate as law professor, but as president of a "conservative public interest law firm".
> ...



you are right again. the "by statute" thing threw me off. i still think it is ambiguously worded.

it is clearer here



> September &#8211; Invitation letters are sent out. *The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters to individuals qualified to nominate* &#8211; members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.




but since i am convinced that you have to do more than graduate law school to become a PROFESSOR, i think the case is clear. the nomination of limbaugh by mark levin's group was void. now, if he somehow is a Professor, he still needed to get an invitation. which he did not get.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


Rorschach was a genius.


----------



## Nelliee (Oct 11, 2009)

Nobel Prize Committee are misinformed idiots... Obama is a terrorist sympathizer!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2009)

The right wing fringe loonies are not terrorists, just simply unhinged.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Bullshit about the invitation, unless you have something to back that up.  We'll wait.


----------



## elvis (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


That's it.  Defend your Ossiah.  He is counting on you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2009)

"Defending", bingo boy?  He is telling you what reality is in this matter.


----------



## elvis (Oct 11, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Defending", bingo boy?  He is telling you what reality is in this matter.



Who is "he", numbnuts?  as for reality, you are so detached from it, you probably think your ossiah deserves the award.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


What does this post have to do with the FACT you have to receive an invitation by the Nobel Committee to be qualified to nominate?


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Fuck off dipshit.

He was officially nominated. 

Too fucken bad you don't like it.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


What FACT?  Just because you said so?  Don't count on it.  

Back it up.  Show us where the Nobel committee requires an invitation in  addition to the requirements in their statutes for those who can nominate.

Idiot.


----------



## elvis (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



because you're making excuses for a bad decision.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



you are a true genius. spock would be proud.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


The evidence an invitation needs to be extended by the Nobel Committee to qualify to nominate has already been posted in this thread.

You will not find an invitation extended to Levin or his Landmark Legal Foundation, and I guarantee you he will not be able to provide evidence of that invitation.

Does munching on Mark Levine's ass get you extra Ditto points in connie heaven?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


Liar.

Where is this 'evidence' that an invitation is needed in addition to the qualifications outlined to nominate?

Such a liar you are.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Then this really begs the question, what _*Idjit*_ nominated Obama???


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Si Modo, as usual is following me around, with the knowledge I ignore her inanity.

She can't seem to help herself.

Perhaps Mr. Eder or some other kind soul who happens to have read this thread and repost the evidence provided earlier - or can, you know...do a 2 second google...

lol.

Maybe someone can set the poor afflicted twit straight.

Poor thing.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

And, as usual, even though I don't reply to her, she neg reps now.  Again.  

Poor thing, doubly so.  So afflicted.


Tsk.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> And, as usual, even though I don't reply to her, she neg reps now.  Again.
> 
> Poor thing, doubly so.  So afflicted.
> 
> ...


Whining again???!!!!???


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> Si Modo, as usual is following me around, with the knowledge I ignore her inanity.
> 
> She can't seem to help herself.
> 
> ...




the obtuse behind the curve si modo must have me on ignore, too. as we both already posted the relevant information.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

GWV5903 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



you will have to be patient and wait 50 years. but i can assure you this idjit was a qualified nominator and got an invitation in september 2008.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Si Modo, as usual is following me around, with the knowledge I ignore her inanity.
> ...


Yes.  I know.   

Some people have a hard time reading through their puss-oozing rage.  I guess.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Si Modo, as usual is following me around, with the knowledge I ignore her inanity.
> ...


Moron.  Anyone who is qualified per the statutes of the committee can nominate.  





> Process of Nomination and Selection
> 
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee is responsible for the selection of eligible candidates and the choice of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The Committee is composed of five members appointed by the Storting (Norwegian parliament). The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo, Norway, not in Stockholm, Sweden, where the Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and the Economics Prize are awarded.
> 
> ...



All profs, and others who are eligible are automatically 'invited' to nominate.

There is nothing special, except meeting the qualifications of the statutes - being a prof at a research institution is one of them.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...




do you think you are helping your case when you are posting information that has been posted by me before in this thread? step one, invitations are sent out. hello?

did mark levin get one? is he a professor? this is the meat, you spoon.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



I don't care about Mark Levin.  I care about honesty.

If Mark Levin is a prof at an institution having an active research program, it is a given that he got an 'invitation'.  Those are the statutes of the Noble organization.  The implication that there is an invitation IN ADDITION (you and paperweight would do yourselves a service if you actually read the question I asked) to the requirements of the statutes is flat wrong.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



riddle me this: why is the invitation step included in the nomination process?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2009)

Si modo said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



You made the silly charge from the beginning.  So, put up or shut up if you can't post your evidence.  In other words, si modo, you are making no sense if you have nothing other than, "I don't like it."  Who cares what you think?


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...




I think you are talking above her pay grade.  lol.
*Number of nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009*

             "Every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee sends out *thousands of letters inviting a qualified and select number of people to submit their nominations for the Nobel PeacePrize. * The names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later, but the Nobel Peace Prize committee does  reveal the number  of nominees each year."


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


I realize this is a difficult concept for you, but the statutes already indicate the qualifications and are thus already select.  "IN ADDITION" to the requirements of the statutes, sweetheart, is what I asked.  Why are those two words so hard for you to grasp?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




she has big problems with logic and thinks she can make up for it with scratching and biting.

the other nobel prizes are by invitation ONLY.

literature and peace are different, as there are no hard criteria. so for literature the nobelprize.org states EXPLICITLY that nominations can be submitted without invitation by qualified persons.



> Other persons who are qualified to nominate but who have not received invitations may also submit nominations.



this exemption is missing with the peace prize. curious, huh?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


And there it is.  The assumption. 

I don't think that my question is all that unclear. I asked for support that some invitation is required _in addition_ to the requirements of the statute. I do not see that specified anywhere.

I don't give a damn about Mark Levin, but I do like accuracy. And the assumption that there is an invitation _in addition_ to the requirements is not supported.  I would like to see something that supports that assumption.

I'm not here to be right or wrong, I just want solid information yet too many are opposed to providing that and others daring to ask for it.  It's dishonest, but expected from some who have established themselves as such.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


In addition, Levine HIMSELF notes it was *unsolicited.*

"Landmark Legal Foundation herewith submits the name of Rush Limbaugh as *an unsolicited nomination for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize*.

Landmark Legal Foundation Nominates Rush Limbaugh for 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

Talk about a fuckwit.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> literature and peace are different, as there are no hard criteria. so for literature the nobelprize.org states EXPLICITLY that nominations can be submitted without invitation by qualified persons...
> 
> 
> this exemption is missing with the peace prize. curious, huh?



What would "qualify" someone to be an expert on peace?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > literature and peace are different, as there are no hard criteria. so for literature the nobelprize.org states EXPLICITLY that nominations can be submitted without invitation by qualified persons...
> ...


Excellent question as well.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> In addition, Levine HIMSELF notes it was *unsolicited.*
> 
> "Landmark Legal Foundation herewith submits the name of Rush Limbaugh as *an unsolicited nomination for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize*.
> 
> ...


Moron.  Obviously my statement that I don't give a shit about Mark Levin (who doesn't meet the statutes anyway) or Rush Limabaugh was too complex for you to grasp.


----------



## GWV5903 (Oct 11, 2009)

In closing, what does the manipulation of this award do for the American people? 

Does this tell us that _*The Hope & Change*_ mantra of the Obama Campaign really means we get something for nothing? 

Are we going to try and tell our future generations (our children) that our President earned a Prestigious _(questionable on the Prestigious part)_ Global Award for his good intentions and not his accomplishments? 

By accepting this award, what message does he really send to the world?

When is the new administration going to really help Americans and quit building up his image?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > literature and peace are different, as there are no hard criteria. so for literature the nobelprize.org states EXPLICITLY that nominations can be submitted without invitation by qualified persons...
> ...



that is why i wrote no hard criteria, yo! that is why literature and peace prizes are handled differently, man i hate to repeat myself.

the nobelprize organization has a clear statement on its webpage whom it considers qualified to nominate for the noble peace prize, some of them get invitations. some of them fuck up, sometimes the voters fuck up, and here we are with a premature peace prize for obama which does not help him nor anybody. a badly timed decision, as i stated a gazillion pages ago.

for si modo i even made a picture, maybe she gets it then, she should definitely recognize the patronizing timbre she sure loves to hand out.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...








 
 


Love it!


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Cute pic.  However, where is the support that nominations are allowed by those who have an invitation IN ADDITION to the requirements of the statutes.

You can say it all you want.  I understand that you _assume_ that an inviation is required in addition to the requirements of the statutes, but where is this "IN ADDTION" stated by the foundation?

It's a simple request.  Your and others' resistance is suspect.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

*Nomination to the Nobel Peace Prize        is by invitation only.*


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



yes it is an assumption, and a pretty safe one at that, but that would require application of logic. you can come to the same conclusion if you can solve my riddle. ooooh, i love to condescend, it makes me feel all powerful.

if you contest the assumption, please find me a statement like the one about the exemption for the nobel prize in literature, should be easy to find, right?

ps, i care about accuracy and honesty too, it is sunday after all.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> *Nomination to the Nobel Peace Prize        is by invitation only.*


I realize that your brain is non-existent, but in the hopes that somebody does actually have a brain, perhaps they can explain how this information equates to an invitation letter being required IN ADDITION to the qualifications by statue:

"Invitation letters are sent out. The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters to individuals qualified to nominate  members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute."

Those qualified to nominate, by statute:  1.  	Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
2. 	Members of international courts;
3. 	University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
4. 	Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
5. 	Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
6. 	Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
7. 	Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.





So far, the claim that a letter is required IN ADDITION to the qualifications by statute is a _non sequitur_.  Some are obviously satisfied with _non sequiturs_.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Poor thing.  


Can't even read the words from the Nobel Institute themselves who state pretty clearly and succinctly:  *"Nomination to the Nobel Peace Prize        is by invitation only.*"


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

it is curious that the nobelprize.org page changed the wording in 2007 from:



> Nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize
> 
> Nomination to the Nobel Peace Prize is by invitation only. The Nobel Committee sends confidential forms to persons who are competent and qualified to nominate. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later.



to this currently:



> Nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize
> 
> Every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee sends out thousands of letters inviting qualified people to submit their nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later.



don't forget that this conversation centered around the non-nomination of limbaugh for the nobel peace prize


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2009)

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Your refusal to accept the correct answer is suspect, so I suggest we simply move on.

The nomination, the award, and the acceptance are all recognition of the international and national rejections of the Bush years.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

Morons, when shown their _non sequiturs_, obviously have issues with that, prefer remaining morons, or are so moronic they haven't a clue what a _non sequitur_ even is.  I suspect at this point, some may actually be willfully obtuse, but I am pretty sure that most are just too stupid to even get it. 

It's a hard life being resistant to thinking, I suppose.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> it is curious that the nobelprize.org page changed the wording in 2007 from:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know. Of which Levine was certainly not qualified to nominate.

Pretty certain  they did not change the "by invitation only" requirement.

It may have been due to just an attempt to make the Nobel site's web paragraph more concise.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > it is curious that the nobelprize.org page changed the wording in 2007 from:
> ...



actually it makes the website more ambiguous. maybe they are about to change the rules to the same as the literature prize, which would still leave levin out in the cold, as i still am not convinced that he is a professor. 

to sum up, rush limbaugh was not nominated for the nobel peace prize. if i like it or not.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


That we know of...


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



fuck yes, again  with my dishonest assumptions. ok, i will wait 50 years.

or qualify my statement thusly:

rush limbaugh was not nominated for the nobel peace prize by mark levin's Landmark Legal Foundation in 2007. there, that is airtight.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


Indeed it is sir!


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Like you're an authority.....

Don't make me laugh.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

Well You have to hand it  to liberals once they have decided something , facts really don't matter.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Well You have to hand it  to liberals once they have decided something , facts really don't matter.


I submit that for many critical thought not only doesn't matter, it is scornful.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Well You have to hand it  to liberals once they have decided something , facts really don't matter.



Mr. Fitnah, I'm Liberal and you can rightly go fuck yourself if you're going to paint with that wide brush of yours. Only the idiots are disagreeing with the facts, not Liberals.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Well You have to hand it  to liberals once they have decided something , facts really don't matter.
> ...


That is true.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Well You have to hand it  to liberals once they have decided something , facts really don't matter.
> ...


Well thank you sir, I have never met a liberal who when  it came down to  the final analysis  was doing such a precises impression of  an idiot it was not possible to tell if it was an act or the real mccoy.
 So please  elucidate for those playing along at home. Are you a real Idiot or are you  just playing one?


----------



## Dr.House (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Well You have to hand it  to liberals once they have decided something , facts really don't matter.
> ...



Do you get this "upset" when anyone paints with a broad brush or just when a conservative does it?


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Well You have to hand it  to liberals once they have decided something , facts really don't matter.
> ...



You must be an idiot then.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Well thank you sir, I have never met a liberal who when  it came down to  the final analysis  was doing such a precises impression of  an idiot it was not possible to tell if it was an act or the real mccoy.
> So please  elucidate for those playing along at home. Are you a real Idiot or are you  just playing one?



You generalize in your posts, expect such a response back. How would you feel if I connected your ideology with a negative person who abuses it?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 11, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Do you get this "upset" when anyone paints with a broad brush or just when a conservative does it?



I'm not upset first off. Secondly, when someone insults me by trying to connect me with something I'm not I am not going to take it lying down.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> You must be an idiot then.



Take it elsewhere hack.


----------



## Dr.House (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Do you get this "upset" when anyone paints with a broad brush or just when a conservative does it?
> ...


Interesting...  Usually the words "you can rightly go fuck yourself" tend to lead one to believe some sort of upset feelings from the person who typed it...



> Secondly, when someone insults me by trying to connect me with something I'm not I am not going to take it lying down.


Here's a little hint for whenever a broad brush is used that's served me well: 

*If it doesn't relate to you then it's not an insult to you.*

He never said "all liberals" and had he done so then you could legitimately claim some sort of "faux-trage"...  Broad brushes, although large, are not all encompassing...


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 11, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


naw, i do that with no feelings at all


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > You must be an idiot then.
> ...



Fuck you shit bird.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


Id say he is upset  all the time, seeming to be unhinged or about to become unhinged at any moment.
It is all just to much.
I m fairly unfamiliar with the poster,He has been on ignore since having read 3 posts in a row  some time back. They were evidence of  no further attention needed .
That was until someone had to go ahead and quote him.
And here we are.

I going to have a ginger beer.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Fuck you shit bird.



 I'd ask you a question but you'd just avoid answering it again.

This is what I think every time I see one of your posts:


----------



## Dr.House (Oct 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



You're a unique case...

LOL


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Well You have to hand it  to liberals once they have decided something , facts really don't matter.
> ...




this is too hilarious. mr fitnah appears again after enough blubber insulates him from fail.
hey, what about the prof status of mark levin? where does he teach? mark levin does not qualify even if no invitations were necessary, which brings me to my favorit specimen of hoity-toity-peacock, shake your fail feather. you do it so well!


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


Ah, another for whom the concept about not giving a shit about Mark Levin is too complex to grasp.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


you need to get your timeline perception upgraded, peacock.

another display of "why do i enter a conversation that concerns the non-nomination of rush limbaugh by mark levin if i don't care about mark levin" stupidity.

you are beyond phony. but fun to mock.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


Still confused about my saying I care about accuracy.

You are so easily confused.


Si modo said:


> ....
> 
> I don't care about Mark Levin.  I care about honesty.
> ....





Si modo said:


> ....
> I don't give a damn about Mark Levin, but I do like accuracy. ....





This is really not very challenging at this point.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



so why are you here, beside the obvious agenda of displaying your ability to not get it.

do you ever read before you dunk your head into it?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


To be employed is not a requirement 
His degree provides the necessary status


Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*Juris_Doctor*
Latin
doceo docui doctum : to instruct, teach, tutor. 
doctor : *teacher. *
doctrina : doctrine, teaching, instruction, learning. 

Mark Levin
 Levin earned his B.A. and* J.D*. at Temple University.

The meaning of the word* professor* (Latin: professor, person who professes to be an *expert in some art or science, teacher of highest ran*k[1]) 

Mark R. Levin grew up in Philadelphia, PA and holds a B.A. from Temple University, where he graduated *Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude.* Levin also earned a J.D. from the Temple University Beasley School of Law.

The honor is typically indicated on the diploma. Latin honours are often conferred upon law school graduates receiving a Juris Doctor or J.D., where they are generally based upon class rank or grade point average.

Professors are qualified experts, of the various levels described above, who may do the following:
*conduct lectures and seminars in their field of study *(i.e., they "profess"), such as the basic fields of science, humanities, social sciences, education, literature, music or the applied fields of engineering, design, medicine, *law*, or business;
perform advanced research in their fields.
provide pro bono community service, including consulting functions (such as advising government and nonprofit organizations);
teach campus-based or online courses with the help of instructional technology;
train young or new academics (graduate students);
carry out administrative or managerial functions, usually at a high level (e.g. deans, heads of department, librarians, etc.).


Fully qualified .


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




sorry, mr. fitnah. i take that as your admission that mark levin is not a professor.

if not, then in the future call me professor too, as i have earned some degrees.

or is [general] your education this fucked up, that you get professor the moment [general]you graduate?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


It certainly isn't to see lies and idiotic logical fallacies.  And less so to see irrational emoting.  If I wanted that, I would look for an Oprah forum.  Your feelings are irrelevant to me.  Accuracy in information is relevant.

Your issues with that are fascinating, but in a creepy sense.

Perhaps if you took a few shots, you might actually calm down some.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


But not qualified to nominate Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Aw.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



your post had nothing to offer. why do you feel compelled to butt your head into conversations, get schooled, then pretend that your intention was something else? and isn't it time to call me pussy or a kraut again?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


I understand that you believe that your _non sequitur_ was valid and hated to have the fallacy of it discussed.  I understand.

I would ask you if understanding is making you feel better, but as I said, your feelings are irrelevant to me.

Accuracy is relevant, to me.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


You would not qualify as a professor , You do not have  any expertise in anything other than your own opinion.
In the USA He may not meet the criteria  in  the country in Question ,He may

It is a matter of semantics .


Norway

In Norway the word professor is only used for full professors at universities or scientific institutions at a similar level. The position below professor is called førsteamanuensis ("first amanuensis"), which is officially translated to English as Associate Professor, and which require, as a minimum, a doctoral degree or similar competence. The position of Docent, applied to people of the same competence as a Professor who did not hold a Professoral chair, was abolished in 1985, when all Docents received the title of Professor.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > literature and peace are different, as there are no hard criteria. so for literature the nobelprize.org states EXPLICITLY that nominations can be submitted without invitation by qualified persons...
> ...



Good question but I don't think that the prize is awarded to people who are experts on peace or even to people who have succeeded in bringing peace.  Since few have actually succeeded in bringing about peace and none have brought about world peace.

Unlike many of those on my side who seem to think that Jimmy Carter was unworthy of the prize, I think that his efforts were commendable and might have made him worthy of it simply because of his efforts.

I will say that same thing about President Obama.  He need not succeed in bringing Peace in the Middle East in the next 3 to 7 years to be worthy of the prize.  He simply needs to work to promote that peace.  No one expects him to be successful, but I do still feel that this award was at least one year to early and that the awarding of this prize to him now, cheapens the award itself and unfortunately any positive work the President will accomplish in the future both while he is President and if he stays on the scene later.

Immie


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 11, 2009)

So.

What did he do again?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...




your post confuses me. being a professor is a matter of semantics? no way to norway.

mark levin could even be a teacher at an obscure religious private college and maybe you would call him a professor. but mark levin does not teach anywhere but on the ether, right?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

The requirements for professorship  in Norway are  to have a Doctoral degree  according to the Wiki page.
Not that Im a big fan of wiki but in this case I doesn't seem to have been a highly emotionally charged debate over the issue so I assume it may in fact be accurate.

You do not have to be employed at a university  to be a professor or a teacher , He teaches daily on Hate radio and in books.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The requirements for professorship  in Norway are  to have a Doctoral degree  according to the Wiki page.
> Not that Im a big fan of wiki but in this case I doesn't seem to have been a highly emotionally charged debate over the issue so I assume it may in fact be accurate.
> 
> You do not have to be employed at a university  to be a professor or a teacher , He teaches daily on Hate radio and in books.



come on now, Mr. Fitnah, you are so close to the truth. 

Just say it with me:

Mark Levin is not a Law Professor.

(i apologize for the patronizing tone, i could not find another way to put it)


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > The requirements for professorship  in Norway are  to have a Doctoral degree  according to the Wiki page.
> ...


He would be considered qualified as a professor of law in the country in question, Norway.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


It's all pretty stupidly irrelevant, isn't it?

He wasn't qualified to be a nominator. Period.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


Perhaps so. But there is no doubt  who he put in for nomination is, was, and always will be a better choice.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Rush Limbaugh.

Peacemaker.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 11, 2009)

Obama did a fine job of not being bush for 9 months, obviously.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> Peacemaker.



BH Obama Chicago thug , teleprompter reader.


----------



## Fatality (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



youre going to need the PhD for that, or at least the EdD


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



ok, there is the meat.

and no, norway would not qualify some law school graduate as a professor.

why would they.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Fatality said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



like mark levin?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Because that is their standard.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



dude, you are punting. this is a minor thing. why can't you get over yourself and agree with me that rush limbaugh was not nominated?


----------



## elvis (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Well, without reading through this thread, he was about as qualified as Obama.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...




hey you cannot give your opinion without reading all the posts! that's like totally unfair!


----------



## elvis (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



That's like 85 pages.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


I dont agree with you assertion.
There is more than a possibility you are wrong .
In fact it is likely you are your based on prior performance.

It would be  better for your position to edit the wiki page to reflect your opinion. then come back and show the change in Norways standard.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


you didnt miss much

obamabots: he brought hopey changey, he deserves it, besides, hes better than BOOOOSH

rightwingnuts: Obama bought them off to win

most normal people*: it wasnt a just award to give the Nobel to someone that hasnt actually done anything YET




*including Obama


----------



## Modbert (Oct 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> That's like 85 pages.



Get cracking. Maybe by the time you finish it will be sunrise.


----------



## elvis (Oct 11, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > That's like 85 pages.
> ...



I think Paris Hilton should win it next year.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


well, shes for world peace too, right?



oh wait, thats Ben & Jerry's "Imagine whirled peace" Ice Cream shes for


----------



## elvis (Oct 11, 2009)

She puts the "ho" in hotel heiress.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 11, 2009)

Next year, Malik Shabazz.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> I think Paris Hilton should win it next year.



 Think higher.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 12, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



you want to get pissy? then clean up your act and post something i can understand.

so far your post is an insult to the english language, and to me.


----------



## wayne (Oct 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



It's a  joke.


----------



## mightypeon (Oct 12, 2009)

Newsflash: What do republicans and Hugo Chavez have in common?
Both think that Obama should not have gotten the Nobel Prize!


----------



## Si modo (Oct 12, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> Newsflash: What do republicans and Hugo Chavez have in common?
> Both think that Obama should not have gotten the Nobel Prize!


I bet both think the sky is blue, too!


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 12, 2009)

Si modo said:


> mightypeon said:
> 
> 
> > Newsflash: What do republicans and Hugo Chavez have in common?
> ...


and that 2+2=4


----------



## Si modo (Oct 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > mightypeon said:
> ...


Yes!  Thus, the GOP are authoritarian dictators!


*I feel so dirty, now.*


----------



## Toome (Oct 12, 2009)

Well, I didn't plow through the 85 pages so far on this thread, so this may be repetitive.

First off, I don't blame Obama for receiving this award.  I do blame the members of the Nobel Committee for politicizing the award.  But they had done that years ago when they awarded Al Gore for that documentary which has been proven to be scientifically inaccurate, politically-driven and filled more with myths than facts.  Anything in the name of environmentalism is fair game, I suppose.

Secondly, what concerns me about Obama receiving this award is that he'll see this as some sort of "mandate" from the people of the world.  On his own, he's already started subordinating American interests abroad during his Great American Apology Tour of '09.  Now that he's been given this prestigious prize, I'm afraid that he will now feel obligated to subordinate American interests even more, all in the name of world community participation, being a good neighbor, and all the other Kumbaya-driven bullshit.

Lastly, there are others who truly work hard at making the world a better and more peaceful place for their fellow man (woman).  They do their work in remote locations whether in the jungles, desert, mountains or urban ghettos.  They may or may not have any fame.  Their work is legitimate.  They are truly peacemakers.  When they don't receive any recognition for their work, the opportunity to gain more financial support for their good work suffers.  Winning the Nobel Peace Prize brings legitimate prestige to those efforts and that results in huge donations to truly worthy causes.  Politicians don't need that recognition.  It's the non-political peacemakers who really need it.

Again, not Obama's fault that a leftist-driven committee gave him the Nobel Peace Prize purely for political reasons.  But it's how he uses that prestige from here on out that will either be his fault or to his credit, depending on what he does and why!


----------



## ncarolinadixie (Oct 12, 2009)

"Lastly, there are others who truly work hard at making the world a better and more peaceful place for their fellow man (woman). They do their work in remote locations whether in the jungles, desert, mountains or urban ghettos. They may or may not have any fame. Their work is legitimate. They are truly peacemakers. When they don't receive any recognition for their work, the opportunity to gain more financial support for their good work suffers. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize brings legitimate prestige to those efforts and that results in huge donations to truly worthy causes. Politicians don't need that recognition. It's the non-political peacemakers who really need it.

Again, not Obama's fault that a leftist-driven committee gave him the Nobel Peace Prize purely for political reasons. But it's how he uses that prestige from here on out that will either be his fault or to his credit, depending on what he does and why!" 


Well said and dead on the money!!! I am impressed that he at least admitted he does NOT deserve the award and would have really been impressed if he'd refused it and asked that it be given to one of the thousands of such people as you described. I've always wondered how they make their decision of one person over another and it seems that by doing this they gave me more answers than I cared to know. I truely hope he does in fact, as he says he is going to do, donates the money garnered from the award to a WELL DESERVING charity. That is yet to be seen and hopefully there will be FULL disclosure as to who exactly this "charity" will be. A big rep to you for your well put words!!


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 12, 2009)

ncarolinadixie said:


> "Lastly, there are others who truly work hard at making the world a better and more peaceful place for their fellow man (woman). They do their work in remote locations whether in the jungles, desert, mountains or urban ghettos. They may or may not have any fame. Their work is legitimate. They are truly peacemakers. When they don't receive any recognition for their work, the opportunity to gain more financial support for their good work suffers. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize brings legitimate prestige to those efforts and that results in huge donations to truly worthy causes. Politicians don't need that recognition. It's the non-political peacemakers who really need it.
> 
> Again, not Obama's fault that a leftist-driven committee gave him the Nobel Peace Prize purely for political reasons. But it's how he uses that prestige from here on out that will either be his fault or to his credit, depending on what he does and why!"
> 
> ...



Actually, I think he was using false modesty.

He thinks he deserves the award. 

He needed this award badly.

And if you expect full disclosure from Obama don't hold your breath.

The cash will go somewhere that will benefit Obama.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 12, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> ncarolinadixie said:
> 
> 
> > "Lastly, there are others who truly work hard at making the world a better and more peaceful place for their fellow man (woman). They do their work in remote locations whether in the jungles, desert, mountains or urban ghettos. They may or may not have any fame. Their work is legitimate. They are truly peacemakers. When they don't receive any recognition for their work, the opportunity to gain more financial support for their good work suffers. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize brings legitimate prestige to those efforts and that results in huge donations to truly worthy causes. Politicians don't need that recognition. It's the non-political peacemakers who really need it.
> ...



It's gonna be highly entertaining if he's pushed into taking military action against Iran. 

And send more troops into Afghanistan.

But, like you, let's see where the money goes. Personally, I think it belongs to the country.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 12, 2009)

ncarolinadixie said:


> Well said and dead on the money!!! I am impressed that he at least admitted he does NOT deserve the award and would have really been impressed if he'd refused it and asked that it be given to one of the thousands of such people as you described. I've always wondered how they make their decision of one person over another and it seems that by doing this they gave me more answers than I cared to know. I truely hope he does in fact, as he says he is going to do, donates the money garnered from the award to a WELL DESERVING charity. That is yet to be seen and hopefully there will be FULL disclosure as to who exactly this "charity" will be. A big rep to you for your well put words!!



What would be impressive is if he donated that money to one of those organizations he spoke of.  I don't think refusing it would have been the right thing to do.  It would have made him look like a fool.  



mudwhistle said:


> Actually, I think he was using false modesty.
> 
> He thinks he deserves the award.
> 
> ...



I suspect it was false modesty as well, but only the most arrogant politicians would actually claim they were worthy of such an award.  Just curious, did Al Gore act as if he had earned the award?

Immie


----------



## Liability (Oct 12, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny? * * * *
> ...



I'm going to ask you to stop taking my posts out of context. As for this whole outrage vs laughter stuff, whatever. Delude yourself if you care to. The fact you're continuing to respond to my point on this means you really don't want anyone thinking this is outrage. So again, whatever. Feel whatever makes you happy.[/QUOTE]

A.   You really MUST learn to use the quote function.  It's like all easy and shit.  

B.  I'm sorry I didn't get back here yesterday.  I missed you brilliant post.  

C.  I have taken none of your posts out of context -- as you know.  I have merely responded to your silly musings.  Your musings ARE silly, by the way.

Still no outrage.

Derisive laughter? Yep.

Outrage?  Nyet.

That you have some silly need to pretend that it is a matter even remotely involving "outrage" just keeps making it funnier and funnier.  Thanks.  Lotsa us need some more laughter.  You are a source.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 12, 2009)

I think people know that the Nobel comittee is not under Obama's control, and they repsect the humility he showed by stating clearly that he did not deserve the honor.

At least, the latest polling seems to back that up:

RCP Average 
Approve:  53.0 / Disapprove:  39.9 / Spread:  +13.1 

That's a point gain from last week.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 12, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> I think people know that the Nobel comittee is not under Obama's control, and they repsect the humility he showed by stating clearly that he did not deserve the honor.
> 
> At least, the latest polling seems to back that up:
> 
> ...



I'd have to say that the way he has handled this has improved my view of him.  Not that I "Approve" as one would answer the question in the poll, but my view has gone up.

The President was not responsible for his being given the award and I have to wonder if his modesty was false or not, but as far as I can tell, he has done well with his response.  I sure as hell would not expect him to turn down the award.  

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2009)

The wingnut ranting here is fun, all thirteen of them huddled under the sheet together, chanting "Down with Obama!" while 300 hundred million citizens go about their business.

The award was simply an notification that the international community ratifies Real America's rejection of this last administration and its policies.  Let's move on.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 12, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> I think people know that the Nobel comittee is not under Obama's control, and they repsect the humility he showed by stating clearly that he did not deserve the honor.
> 
> At least, the latest polling seems to back that up:
> 
> ...


uh, did you notice they included 2 more polls that werent included last week that both had his approval at 56%
LOL
the others have either gone down or stayed the same and they are all within 3 points of rasmussen
LOL


----------



## Modbert (Oct 12, 2009)

86 pages later:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kn3oIbBJac&feature=related]YouTube - The Whispers And the beat goes on[/ame]


----------



## elvis (Oct 12, 2009)

Jerkoff Shitkey is now quoting Sarah Palin.  What a moron.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Jerkoff Shitkey is now quoting Sarah Palin.  What a moron.



If you've come to the point where you are quoting Sarah Palin, time to call it a  night.


----------



## elvis (Oct 12, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Jerkoff Shitkey is now quoting Sarah Palin.  What a moron.
> ...



well it's the first time I've ever seen a lefty go the Palin route.  I didn't like it when she said it.  I don't like it when fuckwad says it.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> well it's the first time I've ever seen a lefty go the Palin route.  I didn't like it when she said it.  I don't like it when fuckwad says it.



 I think I've quoted Palin once or twice but it was always mocking her. Not actually being serious.


----------



## Neser Boha (Oct 13, 2009)

Wow, some people really thought that Obama had his hands in getting the Nobel Peace Prize?  



Some people's imagination never ceases to amaze me


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 13, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> Wow, some people really thought that Obama had his hands in getting the Nobel Peace Prize?
> 
> 
> 
> Some people's imagination never ceases to amaze me


just like some people actually think he deserves it


----------



## Neser Boha (Oct 13, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, some people really thought that Obama had his hands in getting the Nobel Peace Prize?
> ...



Who here has actually said that they think he deserves it?  I have to be honest, I didnt read the entire 85 pages of this bullshit, but I doubt there are more than two people that actually think Obama deserved this award.


----------



## mal (Oct 13, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Neser Boha said:
> ...



I have read no such thing either...

Hell, even David Sarota, a Leftist on Err Amerika was going after Nobel for Cheapening the Prize for Obviously Political Reasons...

A Swipe at (43), and that's about it.



peace...


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 13, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Neser Boha said:
> ...


then take the time to read this thread
it will be EYE OPENING

btw, if you go to your userCP and change the setting for posts per page, it wont be so many pages
i use the highest, 40 posts per page


----------



## mal (Oct 13, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I've been Following this Thread since about an hour after the Wee Hour you Posted it, and it is FEW and FAR Between if at all that anyone is Seriously Claiming that Barry Deserved this...



peace...


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The wingnut ranting here is fun, all thirteen of them huddled under the sheet together, chanting "Down with Obama!" while 300 hundred million citizens go about their business.
> 
> The award was simply an notification that the international community ratifies Real America's rejection of this last administration and its policies.  Let's move on.



Only in your mind.


When it gets to the point that even most of his supporters are scratching their heads over why he got it in the first place I think there is substance to the opposition to it. I've got news for you, American isn't buying this bullshit.

So a bunch of Euro-socialists giving a token award to a person that didn't earn it. Who gives a fuck.

It's a meaningless award.

It is not a ratification of anything.


----------



## mal (Oct 13, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> "Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments....To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. - Barrack Obama
> 
> First time I ever remember Obama being honest.



+1...

I LOVE that Quote.



peace...


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 13, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Neser Boha said:
> ...


yes, few, but there are SOME
and they HAVE posted in this thread


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 13, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> "Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments....To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. - Barrack Obama
> 
> *First time I ever remember Obama being honest*.



I think he miss-spoke. He truly believe he deserve it. Otherwise why would he accept it?


----------



## mal (Oct 13, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



They were Probably just being Disagreeable to get under your Skin...

Nobody with the Ability to Type and Post can Possibly Agree that he Deserved it, when he in Fact said he didn't...

He wasn't be Humble, he was being Honest... A Rare Occassion for Glorious Leader.



peace...


----------



## Neser Boha (Oct 13, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I can honestly come up with 99 more interesting and productive ways of spending the time it would take to read that crap.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 13, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > I think people know that the Nobel comittee is not under Obama's control, and they repsect the humility he showed by stating clearly that he did not deserve the honor.
> ...



Yes, I did.  Should those polls have been excluded for some reason?

And the result today are even better.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 13, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


no it isnt
it is exactly the same


so, were you lying, or just wrong?


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 14, 2009)

Ame®icano;1610596 said:
			
		

> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > "Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments....To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. - Barrack Obama
> ...



The key word is "transformative". 

I don't think anyone used that word until they started using it to discribe Obama.

So at the same time he's saying he's undeserving.....he's also saying he belongs with the other transformative figures in history.

False modesty on display.

Actually transformative is a new word they invented for Obama. Doing spell check reveals is not a real word.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 14, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Ame®icano;1610596 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are, for a better, a dope.  Sigh.  Transformative - definition of Transformative by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The word is most often used as an adjective or a predicate adjective.


----------



## paperview (Oct 14, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Ame®icano;1610596 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol.

What a riot. 

"transformative is a new word they invented for Obama"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 14, 2009)

And for all normal viewers this board is a transformative experience.

I have had my partners and peers review the more illustrative postings and individuals.  

My colleagues reactions?  

Basically, they want to know if some of you are as whacko as you seem -- yes, you are, I tell them.  They want to know if any of you are dangerous -- one or two are, I tell them, and I keep my eye on those folks.  They ask if some of you are mean-spirited, petty, and vicious -- I tell my colleagues and partners that if this were real life you would be spending 95% of your waking time in the corner in time out.

OK, our day here is about to begin with our first order of business.  I will pop in from time to time.  Try to have California Girl not write obscenities on the walls or Rabbi poop in the corner.


----------



## paperview (Oct 14, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> And for all normal viewers this board is a transformative experience.
> 
> I have had my partners and peers review the more illustrative postings and individuals.
> 
> ...


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 14, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> And for all normal viewers this board is a transformative experience.
> 
> I have had my partners and peers review the more illustrative postings and individuals.
> 
> ...



    

Alright...now your lucid moments are increasing...what kind of meds are you on.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 14, 2009)

I act wack for willow sometimes because she is such an idiot.  So is MM.  Or CG. Or Rabbi (most of the time).  They often cannot fashion an argument that holds water, and when shown they can't, they resort to the lozer behavior.  You have your moments, PP.  So I play along with silly stuff.  But when you guys are being serious and being fair with evidence and the situation, well, then, so do I.  Otherwise, it is merely playtime in the sandbox with rest of the little ones.


----------

