Rosie - Newt should read a history book

Rosie O'Donnell: Newt Gingrich 'Should Read a History Book' | NewsBusters.org

I kid you not. This has got to be the funniest thing I've seen today.

JOY BEHAR, HOST: Yes, but I mean, what about Newt's plan to drop the child labor laws and put kids to work as janitors?

ROSIE O'DONNELL: Yes.

BEHAR: I mean, where does he come up with this crap?

O'DONNELL: I don't know. They tried that in Australia many years ago with aboriginal children. It didn't turn out too well. Perhaps he should read a history book. I don't know. That guy is a joke.


:rofl:

I am not reading this entire Thread... Did a Liberal come in and Defend this Idiocy?...

:)

peace...
 

Simpleton


Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless now.... :eusa_whistle:

Only to Republicans

geezus christ you guys pay to much attention to Dean....i think it does not mean much anymore to more than just Republicans RW......yes its true,there are NON-Republicans out there who think what you said is ....Laughable......

Actually, I think even Obama was embarrassed about the whole thing. He probably asked "Why?" when the whole world was doing the same thing. That move on the part of the committee lowered the prestige in that prize.
 
Rosie is just Ignorantly Regurgitating the same Liberal line... Whenever they can't Debate, they call the person on the Right "stupid"... They did it with Bush for 8 years... And Reagan... But you can say a LOT about Newt, that he needs to read a History book, is NOT one of them... It's an illustration of just how useless a example of our species these (2) are, and they get air time to show it off...

:)

peace...
 
so then there will be no difference whether we have private or Govt health care.....SOMEONE will still be determining who gets what and how much.....

perhaps. but since the government doesn't operate on a profit motive, and insurance companies do, who do you think you have a better shot with?

I always get better customer service when I'm shopping than I do when I'm dealing with government bureaucrats. Funny, that. It's like people who have to WORK for your money will actually do so, and people who get it either way don't give a shit about you.
 
No question that the election of Barack Obama as President will go down in history as one of the most significant events in our sad history of racism. This positive milestone was rightfully acknowledged with a Nobel Prize

Simpleton


Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless now.... :eusa_whistle:

it became meaningless before Obama's award.....

I think Solzhenitsyn's widow said it all when she tried to give his back, because she "didn't think he'd want to be in that kind of company".
 
The modern conception of peace has evolved from the days of Alfred Nobels concerns about peace between nations. Awards have been given for humanitarian, environmental and racial harmony reasons

In the days of Nobel, yes. In our lifetimes the Nobel Peace prize is given to the International Left Man of the Year and seldom has anything to do with "peace." On the rare occasion that it does, there is one criteria, "appeasement."

If "Peace" had anything to do with it, Ronald Reagan would have dominated the eighties. He went from Carter's SALT (L for limitation - zero reduction, just a reduction in growth) and eliminated mid range nuclear weapons with START (R for reduction). He brought the Soviet Union to their knees by recognizing that a 1% GDP growth in our defense was a 10% GDP growth in theirs and it crushed their economy.

On the other hand, the neo Nobel committee has awarded prizes to a terrorist (Arafat) and three Americans who won it by attacking America (Carter, Gore, Obama). There is no historical basis that appeasement has ever led to peace. Even Ghandi and MLK Junior believed in active passive resistance, not appeasement and neither was facing an evil government.
 
The modern conception of peace has evolved from the days of Alfred Nobels concerns about peace between nations. Awards have been given for humanitarian, environmental and racial harmony reasons

In the days of Nobel, yes. In our lifetimes the Nobel Peace prize is given to the International Left Man of the Year and seldom has anything to do with "peace." On the rare occasion that it does, there is one criteria, "appeasement."

If "Peace" had anything to do with it, Ronald Reagan would have dominated the eighties. He went from Carter's SALT (L for limitation - zero reduction, just a reduction in growth) and eliminated mid range nuclear weapons with START (R for reduction). He brought the Soviet Union to their knees by recognizing that a 1% GDP growth in our defense was a 10% GDP growth in theirs and it crushed their economy.

On the other hand, the neo Nobel committee has awarded prizes to a terrorist (Arafat) and three Americans who won it by attacking America (Carter, Gore, Obama). There is no historical basis that appeasement has ever led to peace. Even Ghandi and MLK Junior believed in active passive resistance, not appeasement and neither was facing an evil government.

Carter, Gore and Obama are great Americans

The only ones to protest their awards were Communists, Terrorists and Republicans
 
The modern conception of peace has evolved from the days of Alfred Nobels concerns about peace between nations. Awards have been given for humanitarian, environmental and racial harmony reasons

In the days of Nobel, yes. In our lifetimes the Nobel Peace prize is given to the International Left Man of the Year and seldom has anything to do with "peace." On the rare occasion that it does, there is one criteria, "appeasement."

If "Peace" had anything to do with it, Ronald Reagan would have dominated the eighties. He went from Carter's SALT (L for limitation - zero reduction, just a reduction in growth) and eliminated mid range nuclear weapons with START (R for reduction). He brought the Soviet Union to their knees by recognizing that a 1% GDP growth in our defense was a 10% GDP growth in theirs and it crushed their economy.

On the other hand, the neo Nobel committee has awarded prizes to a terrorist (Arafat) and three Americans who won it by attacking America (Carter, Gore, Obama). There is no historical basis that appeasement has ever led to peace. Even Ghandi and MLK Junior believed in active passive resistance, not appeasement and neither was facing an evil government.

Carter, Gore and Obama are great Americans

The only ones to protest their awards were Communists, Terrorists and Republicans
Gore is an enemy of science.
 
I always get better customer service when I'm shopping than I do when I'm dealing with government bureaucrats. Funny, that. It's like people who have to WORK for your money will actually do so, and people who get it either way don't give a shit about you.

It's the value chain proposition. Business must convince the consumer that that the total value they receive exceeds the value of the cash they expend.

Government only need to convince people that if they don't pay, they go to prison.
 
Last edited:
Carter, Gore and Obama are great Americans

But not as great as Huey, Dewy, and Louie...

The only ones to protest their awards were Communists, Terrorists and Republicans

No communist every protest any of them. Shit, Carter gave North Korea nuclear weapons, he's the best friend a communist ever had. (Yeah, some blame Clinton, but it was Carter pulling the strings.)
 
Compared to Bodecea, Rosie's fucking HOT... And a Genius.

True Story. :thup:

:)

peace...

Holy crap.... :eek::D:badgrin::badgrin::eusa_clap:

Since she's Obsessively following me around this Forum after following me here 2 years ago from the previous 3 she followed me to, I thought I'd Flame her some...

After all, she does have Dedications to me in her Profile, so I thought I should let her know I Care... :lol:

:)

peace...
 
Carter, Gore and Obama are great Americans

The only ones to protest their awards were Communists, Terrorists and Republicans

Where we disagree is that you think America = American government and we're it's servants. While you're right that's what's been happening, it's not the way it should be.
 
The Nobel Committee has long recognized racism as an impediment to world peace. Previous awards to Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu show that

yes....people who had a record of years of working towards peace.......not the current guy.....he had no record of this....
So, now it seems the conventional wisdom among O-bots is that Obama got the peace prize for being black? :lol:

well apparently thats RW'S take on this....
 
Carter, Gore and Obama are great Americans

But not as great as Huey, Dewy, and Louie...

The only ones to protest their awards were Communists, Terrorists and Republicans

No communist every protest any of them. Shit, Carter gave North Korea nuclear weapons, he's the best friend a communist ever had. (Yeah, some blame Clinton, but it was Carter pulling the strings.)

True story...
icon14.gif


[SIZE=+1]Carter gets his prize and N. Korea develops nukes[/SIZE]



In 1994, when Carter went to North Korea to strike a deal, he didn't have the support or authority of the U.S. government to agree to anything. That didn't stop him from announcing on television that he'd made a deal. And the fact that the Clinton administration was out of the loop didn't stop Al Gore from persuading Bill Clinton to leap on the proposal, even though it basically surrendered every major American demand, starting with our insistence that North Korea completely and immediately stop its nuclear weapon program.

The final agreement, which Clinton dubbed "a very good deal indeed," called for the United States to provide the North Koreans with $4 billion worth of light-water reactors and $100 million in oil in exchange for a promise to be good and an assurance that inspectors would be allowed to poke around at some indeterminate point down the road.

At the time, Kang Sok Ju, the chief North Korean negotiator, bragged that "the complete elimination of the existing nuclear program will only come when we have the light-water reactor in our hands." In other words you pay first, we stop later.

The problem with this deal, which prompted The New York Times to declare, "Diplomacy with North Korea has scored a resounding triumph," is the problem with all such deals: It was based on the assumption that evil men willing to murder their own people would never presume to lie to someone like Jimmy Carter. Just as so many thought Hitler wouldn't deceive Chamberlain. The founding Soviet dictator, V.I. Lenin, called the pliant liberals of the West "useful idiots," and the label still has resonance today.
 
It's a demographic, sweetie pie. A number. A stat.

Same way noting how many women have been elected to congress.

Some people are so thick.

We weren't discussing your waist line. Liberals are race obsessed. Stew in it.. we don't give the first damn. That old race card is as worn out as Weiner's facebook acct.

When it comes to race, Conservatives sure talk the talk..

Race does not matter to us, we vote on character and qualifications, we are color blind.......

But in terms of actually voting for black candidates, they don't walk the walk. In the last 50 years, Republicans have elected ONE Senator or Governor....just ONE and that was in the 1960s. Out of thousands of elected Republicans.....they only found ONE that had the proper character or qualifications over a white person

That is a total embarrassment for a major political party in the 21st century and once again shows how the election of a black president in 2008 was a significant event in this country
yes it was a significant event RW.....but it did not warrant the dam Peace Prize.....
 

Forum List

Back
Top