PDA

View Full Version : Obama wins noble prize...



Pages : [1] 2

Stands junky
10-09-2009, 07:15 AM
World shocker, and deff a USA Shocker.. thoughts???

I'm starting to think and fully belivie he is the 3rd anti-christ... Days are #ed boys/girls.

chhspantherfan
10-09-2009, 07:17 AM
free country, believe what you want.

Congratulations Mr. President in becoming the first sitting President to win this award since Woodrow Wilson in 1919.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 07:32 AM
lol.....watch for more incredibly stupid comments to be made.:)

chhspantherfan
10-09-2009, 07:35 AM
lol.....watch for more incredibly stupid comments to be made.:)

it was the thread title that got me ;)

rwilleby
10-09-2009, 07:39 AM
Joke.

15Adragon
10-09-2009, 07:45 AM
The world rejoices when we have a weak president.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 07:45 AM
Exactly......how "noble" the prize is when one wins the "Nobel".
it was the thread title that got me ;)

BDB
10-09-2009, 07:47 AM
World shocker, and deff a USA Shocker.. thoughts???

I'm starting to think and fully belivie he is the 3rd anti-christ... Days are #ed boys/girls.

before talking ****, be a little more noble and look up how to spell nobel.....

BDB
10-09-2009, 07:47 AM
Exactly......how "noble" the prize is when one wins the "Nobel".

aaaaw damn.... yall beat me to it lol

chhspantherfan
10-09-2009, 07:50 AM
aaaaw damn.... yall beat me to it lol

slacker

BDB
10-09-2009, 07:53 AM
slacker


it's a deadly habit.

BDB
10-09-2009, 07:54 AM
i wonder what the reaction would have been if bush or bush or reagan had won the "noble" while in office, here?

Favpack
10-09-2009, 07:58 AM
He had been in office 2.5 weeks when he was nominated. :rolleyes:

15Adragon
10-09-2009, 08:01 AM
on a roll....

2009: U.S. President Barack Obama
2008: Martti Ahtisaari
2007: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore
2006: Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005: International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004: Wangari Maathai
2003: Shirin Ebadi
2002: Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter
2001: United Nations, Kofi Annan

rwilleby
10-09-2009, 08:02 AM
i wonder what the reaction would have been if bush or bush or reagan had won the "noble" while in office, here?

One would have earned it and the other would not have ...

BDB
10-09-2009, 08:04 AM
One would have earned it and the other would not have ...

1 would have earned it and 2 would not have.

rwilleby
10-09-2009, 08:14 AM
1 would have earned it and 2 would not have.

Correct.

LION57
10-09-2009, 08:24 AM
He had been in office 2.5 weeks when he was nominated. :rolleyes:
Makes me sick.:(

Mr. Rod
10-09-2009, 08:28 AM
free country, believe what you want.

Congratulations Mr. President in becoming the first sitting President to win this award since Woodrow Wilson in 1919.

I second that.

pied
10-09-2009, 08:29 AM
"Obama's winning the peace prize shows these prizes are political, not governed by the principles of credibility, values and morals," said an Islamic Jihad leader, Khaled Al-Batsh

At least the haters are in good company.



Couple of thoughts. It seems odd to me that he would win this now and I have not seen any reasons why. While he may not be in someone's political party, he is a US citizen, and more importantly the US President. Pretty big deal, that many on here and elsewhere appear upset that an American won.

How in the world is that thought, not un-patriotic at best, and anti-American at worst?

Mr. Rod
10-09-2009, 08:31 AM
lol.....watch for more incredibly stupid comments to be made.:)

All you have to do is watch Hannity tonight. :D

15Adragon
10-09-2009, 08:36 AM
Does this mean we will get more troops ? What are his plans in dealing with a nuclear Iran? He has some serious decisions to make...

In the meantime, there is peace on the streets of Chicago. ;)

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 08:39 AM
I'd rather count the clowns in this circus at the moment.;)
All you have to do is watch Hannity tonight. :D

Mr. Rod
10-09-2009, 08:40 AM
Does this mean we will get more troops ? What are his plans in dealing with a nuclear Iran? He has some serious decisions to make...

In the meantime, there is peace on the streets of Chicago. ;)

YOU LIE!!! :p

drgnbkr
10-09-2009, 08:42 AM
Does this mean we will get more troops ? What are his plans in dealing with a nuclear Iran? He has some serious decisions to make...

In the meantime, there is peace on the streets of Chicago. ;)

The troops are giving up on him, he has no plan, Chicago? Utopia of community organization. But he's a prize winning, inexperienced, do-nothing and by golly he's ours!

Mr. Rod
10-09-2009, 08:43 AM
The troops are giving up on him, he has no plan, Chicago? Utopia of community organization. But he's a prize winning, inexperienced, do-nothing and by golly he's ours!

That's the spirit.

tayb
10-09-2009, 08:44 AM
lol... wow...

If only some real scientists doing real work had the speech giving abilities (and hired speech writers) that Obama has someone who actually deserved this would have won.

LION57
10-09-2009, 08:45 AM
That's the spirit.
Sadly its the truth.:(

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 08:45 AM
More troops for what? Perhaps our goal and interests in Afghanistan should be revisited first. The Taliban will always be there........they are afterall from there. Have we learned that our soldiers are just that and not to be mistaken for police? Afghanistan will always be under Islamic rule.


Does this mean we will get more troops ? What are his plans in dealing with a nuclear Iran? He has some serious decisions to make...

In the meantime, there is peace on the streets of Chicago. ;)

15Adragon
10-09-2009, 08:46 AM
lol... wow...

If only some real scientists doing real work had the speech giving abilities (and hired speech writers) that Obama has someone who actually deserved this would have won.

a lot of hot air...

15Adragon
10-09-2009, 08:48 AM
More troops for what? Perhaps our goal and interests in Afghanistan should be revisited first. The Taliban will always be there........they are afterall from there. Have we learned that our soldiers are just that and not to be mistaken for police? Afghanistan will always be under Islamic rule.

He needs to respond and lead one way or the other. He needs to lead. Iran? Afghanistan?

drgnbkr
10-09-2009, 08:48 AM
More troops for what? Perhaps our goal and interests in Afghanistan should be revisited first. The Taliban will always be there........they are afterall from there. Have we learned that our soldiers are just that and not to be mistaken for police? Afghanistan will always be under Islamic rule.

So let's just sit on our a$$, while they beg for some support, and let them die? What a foolish view. The Taliban were routed, run off to Pakistan, now see no will to oppose them from this guy and are swarming back in while our general in charge pleads for manpower...Not much of a return on our investment.

pied
10-09-2009, 08:53 AM
So let's just sit on our a$$, while they beg for some support, and let them die? What a foolish view. The Taliban were routed, run off to Pakistan, now see no will to oppose them from this guy and are swarming back in while our general in charge pleads for manpower...Not much of a return on our investment.

So the taliban only started their resurgence when Obama sent in 20,000 more troops? Is that the point you're making?

tayb
10-09-2009, 08:54 AM
a lot of hot air...

You think he actually deserves this? The nomination process began two weeks after he was elected into office, so something he did the first two weeks of his presidency was Nobel Peace Prize worthy? They gave him this based upon initiatives that have not yet happened, but might. Hell, I might just yet save the world from World War III, hasn't happened yet though but based on my initiative to save the world from a deadly third world war I clearly deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. That isn't supposed to be how it works. Literally, what has he done this year to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize? Give me something, anything.

Woodrow Wilson, a past President to win it, created the League of Nations which eventually became the United Nations which is an essential international peace-keeping organization. Compare that to anything that Obama has done this year.

chhspantherfan
10-09-2009, 08:56 AM
You think he actually deserves this? The nomination process began two weeks after he was elected into office, so something he did the first two weeks of his presidency was Nobel Peace Prize worthy? They gave him this based upon initiatives that have not yet happened, but might. Hell, I might just yet save the world from World War III, hasn't happened yet though but based on my initiative to save the world from a deadly third world war I clearly deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. That isn't supposed to be how it works. Literally, what has he done this year to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize? Give me something, anything.

Woodrow Wilson, a past President to win it, created the League of Nations which eventually became the United Nations which is an essential international peace-keeping organization. Compare that to anything that Obama has done this year.


starting to see the value in this award, huh?

15Adragon
10-09-2009, 08:59 AM
You think he actually deserves this? The nomination process began two weeks after he was elected into office, so something he did the first two weeks of his presidency was Nobel Peace Prize worthy? They gave him this based upon initiatives that have not yet happened, but might. Hell, I might just yet save the world from World War III, hasn't happened yet though but based on my initiative to save the world from a deadly third world war I clearly deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. That isn't supposed to be how it works. Literally, what has he done this year to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize? Give me something, anything.

Woodrow Wilson, a past President to win it, created the League of Nations which eventually became the United Nations which is an essential international peace-keeping organization. Compare that to anything that Obama has done this year.

ehhhh... that would be NO. We will find out in the coming months the impact of his presidency.

The Obama presidency is now in full bloom. The fruits will start to become evident - good or bad.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 08:59 AM
We went to Afghanistan to pursue Al Qaeda.........not to police Afghanistan.
Soldiers in remote outposts must be pulled back.
It's foolish to think the Taliban were routed. Al Qaeda fled to Pakistan. There's a huge difference. They just stopped fighting on fronts, laid back and allowed us to overtake some municipalities while the warlords took over and grew some more dope. What do you think happens after that? They just come out when the coast is clear. It's foolish to occupy that place.
Somewhere you seem to forget.....no one can jack somebody up like the US military. It's what we do. When it comes to occupation , policing or forcing democracy on Islamic countries, we are out of our scope.
So let's just sit on our a$$, while they beg for some support, and let them die? What a foolish view. The Taliban were routed, run off to Pakistan, now see no will to oppose them from this guy and are swarming back in while our general in charge pleads for manpower...Not much of a return on our investment.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 09:02 AM
lol...for one, he told the UN that they were relevant again.
You think he actually deserves this? The nomination process began two weeks after he was elected into office, so something he did the first two weeks of his presidency was Nobel Peace Prize worthy? They gave him this based upon initiatives that have not yet happened, but might. Hell, I might just yet save the world from World War III, hasn't happened yet though but based on my initiative to save the world from a deadly third world war I clearly deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. That isn't supposed to be how it works. Literally, what has he done this year to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize? Give me something, anything.

Woodrow Wilson, a past President to win it, created the League of Nations which eventually became the United Nations which is an essential international peace-keeping organization. Compare that to anything that Obama has done this year.

15Adragon
10-09-2009, 09:05 AM
You think he actually deserves this? The nomination process began two weeks after he was elected into office, so something he did the first two weeks of his presidency was Nobel Peace Prize worthy? They gave him this based upon initiatives that have not yet happened, but might. Hell, I might just yet save the world from World War III, hasn't happened yet though but based on my initiative to save the world from a deadly third world war I clearly deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. That isn't supposed to be how it works. Literally, what has he done this year to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize? Give me something, anything.

Woodrow Wilson, a past President to win it, created the League of Nations which eventually became the United Nations which is an essential international peace-keeping organization. Compare that to anything that Obama has done this year.

to clarify I didn't mean your post was hot air. :D

chhspantherfan
10-09-2009, 09:05 AM
We went to Afghanistan to pursue Al Qaeda.........not to police Afghanistan.
Soldiers in remote outposts must be pulled back.
It's foolish to think the Taliban were routed. Al Qaeda fled to Pakistan. There's a huge difference. They just stopped fighting on fronts, laid back and allowed us to overtake some municipalities while the warlords took over and grew some more dope. What do you think happens after that? They just come out when the coast is clear. It's foolish to occupy that place.
Somewhere you seem to forget.....no one can jack somebody up like the US military. It's what we do. When it comes to occupation , policing or forcing democracy on Islamic countries, we are out of our scope.

so what do we do? Withdraw and return to protecting only our borders? What, in your opinion should we do?

tayb
10-09-2009, 09:10 AM
so what do we do? Withdraw and return to protecting only our borders? What, in your opinion should we do?

I'd be fine with it. I'm totally down with an isolationism policy.

pied
10-09-2009, 09:11 AM
so what do we do? Withdraw and return to protecting only our borders? What, in your opinion should we do?

Not direcetd at me, but I think having a clear understanding of what our goal is and then going 100% to fill it is the way to go.

If that is 100% destrcution of the Taliban then commit to what we need. If it's decided that it is less than that, then whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal. We need to know exactly what we want to accomplish before doing anything, whather it's additional troops or a pull back.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 09:11 AM
We must identify what our true goal is in Afghanistan and whether or not it is an acheivable goal.
Sometimes......we must protect our borders by crossing others.
I don't know as of yet what we should do because I don't know what our goal is.
So....first and foremost we must make sure our troops are safe by any means necessary.

so what do we do? Withdraw and return to protecting only our borders? What, in your opinion should we do?

Stands junky
10-09-2009, 09:14 AM
before talking ****, be a little more noble and look up how to spell nobel.....

sorry half asleep, im a fire fighter and had a call.... just take this thread out lol

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 09:16 AM
I agree with what you state with one observation......we can not destroy the Taliban. That's like trying to destroy the Democrats or Republicans.
It is no more than a belief in a strict form of Islam. In other words....a believer can not be identified by eye.

Not direcetd at me, but I think having a clear understanding of what our goal is and then going 100% to fill it is the way to go.

If that is 100% destrcution of the Taliban then commit to what we need. If it's decided that it is less than that, then whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal. We need to know exactly what we want to accomplish before doing anything, whather it's additional troops or a pull back.

chhspantherfan
10-09-2009, 09:16 AM
We must identify what our true goal is in Afghanistan and whether or not it is an acheivable goal.
Sometimes......we must protect our borders by crossing others.
I don't know as of yet what we should do because I don't know what our goal is.
So....first and foremost we must make sure our troops are safe by any means necessary.

and therein lies the twist. Without all of the data, we are all speculating. For me, the bigger question is. Do we have the right people making the decisions?

pied
10-09-2009, 09:18 AM
and therein lies the twist. Without all of the data, we are all speculating. For me, the bigger question is. Do we have the right people making the decisions?

I am very confident in the Secretary of Defense. Even for an a$m guy, he is very impressive indeed.

LION57
10-09-2009, 09:19 AM
Bottom line is Mr. Obama did not deserve this award. Still not sure how he got elected to be President. Community Organizer and about 90 days of service in the Senate. Then nominated for the Nobel after two weeks man is he a smooth operator or what?;)

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 09:21 AM
Actually......intelligence is more accountable. I trust it more.
and therein lies the twist. Without all of the data, we are all speculating. For me, the bigger question is. Do we have the right people making the decisions?

chhspantherfan
10-09-2009, 09:21 AM
I am very confident in the Secretary of Defense. Even for an a$m guy, he is very impressive indeed.

I agree, Gates is a brilliant man. So what does he need from us? Dissent? Support?

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 09:23 AM
lol....the bigger joke was trying to elect McCain and Sarah Palin of all people.
If you don't know how he was elected......stick to reading about hs football. You'll never get anything deeper than that.:notworthy
Bottom line is Mr. Obama did not deserve this award. Still not sure how he got elected to be President. Community Organizer and about 90 days of service in the Senate. Then nominated for the Nobel after two weeks man is he a smooth operator or what?;)

pied
10-09-2009, 09:32 AM
I agree, Gates is a brilliant man. So what does he need from us? Dissent? Support?

Don't know that Gates needs anything from us. I am confident that he will make the appropriate decisions based on our goals.

Maroondog
10-09-2009, 09:40 AM
What exactly has he accomplished to warrant this award?

GoOwls
10-09-2009, 09:43 AM
Two weeks into his presidency is much like 9 months.....we are still in Iraq....we are probably escalating in Afghanisatan.....he made a woefully unsuccessful plea for the Olympics for Chicago....he has spent us into an impending inflation of epic proportions....

Yep, sounds like the qualifications for a man of peace and a man of his word (empty campaign promises)

Yes, the world does rejoice when we have men of weakness for them to exploit....Carter, Gore, Obama....:(

crunked9
10-09-2009, 09:44 AM
How can Obama make military decisions when he has NO experience what so ever!

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 10:01 AM
Why ask a stupid question like that?
His advisors have the experience. What did you think?
How can Obama make military decisions when he has NO experience what so ever!

BDB
10-09-2009, 10:13 AM
Bottom line is Mr. Obama did not deserve this award. Still not sure how he got elected to be President. Community Organizer and about 90 days of service in the Senate. Then nominated for the Nobel after two weeks man is he a smooth operator or what?;)

are you slow, stupid, or just plain dumb?

BDB
10-09-2009, 10:14 AM
How can Obama make military decisions when he has NO experience what so ever!

the same way bush did.

crunked9
10-09-2009, 10:15 AM
Why ask a stupid question like that?
His advisors have the experience. What did you think?

But ultimately it is his call! I am pretty sure he is the Commander-in-Chief!

Pinion
10-09-2009, 10:22 AM
I heard this on the radio news this morning and I rofl for a bit. Then I puked in my mouth a little. Then I drank some dr.pepper and smoked a cigarette and gave a solid /facepalm.

the prize is now officially flawed. wow.

pied
10-09-2009, 10:36 AM
People probably hate this too.


President Obama on Friday said he was "surprised and deeply humbled" by winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

"I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership," Obama said from the White House Rose Garden.

"I will accept this award as a call to action."

Obama said he did not feel he deserves "to be in the company" of past winners.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html

Pinion
10-09-2009, 10:38 AM
People probably hate this too.



http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html

So, even he is scratching his head and wondering WTF he's doing being awarded the prize. hahahaha.
That, in some twisted way, is greatness.:D

LION57
10-09-2009, 11:16 AM
are you slow, stupid, or just plain dumb?
No moron it was a reference to how in the hell did America vote for this cat. Of course I understand how the process works just wandering how the majority could have been so wrong. He has zero qualifications to be President or to recieve the Nobel.

BDB
10-09-2009, 11:43 AM
No moron it was a reference to how in the hell did America vote for this cat. Of course I understand how the process works just wandering how the majority could have been so wrong. He has zero qualifications to be President or to recieve the Nobel.

so you're just slow.

must be if you think the republicans were gonna win oval office after the past 8 years and giving the country a ticket of mccain/palin.

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 11:45 AM
so what do we do? Withdraw and return to protecting only our borders? What, in your opinion should we do?

That is absolutely the American thing to do, and you would realize this if you had any grasp on the history of American foreign policy beyond Reagan.

Our army should DIRECTLY protect AMERICA, not America's empire of military bases strewn across the globe, but we should use our position as world leaders to influence global diplomacy.

Mong Hu
10-09-2009, 12:14 PM
[QUOTE=pied;1330418]People probably hate this too.


Well, has anybody seen the forcast for :Censor:, it must be a cold day there because I now can say that I agree with the President on two issues.

1) Kanye West is a :Censor:

and

2) Obama is not qualified to be in the company of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. (although I do have to say that he fits right in with Carter and Gore. As if we needed any other proof that this award has been turned into a complete joke.)

pied
10-09-2009, 12:17 PM
Well, has anybody seen the forcast for :Censor:, it must be a cold day there because I now can say that I agree with the President on two issues.



Seems that you have outed yourself for predetermining that you will not agree with anything the President might say ever.

At least you have confirmed you are close minded.

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Well, has anybody seen the forcast for :Censor:, it must be a cold day there because I now can say that I agree with the President on two issues.

1) Kanye West is a :Censor:

and

2) Obama is not qualified to be in the company of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. (although I do have to say that he fits right in with Carter and Gore. As if we needed any other proof that this award has been turned into a complete joke.)

I want the smart Mong Hu back. :(

This one can't even quote properly...

Mong Hu
10-09-2009, 12:29 PM
That is absolutely the American thing to do, and you would realize this if you had any grasp on the history of American foreign policy beyond Reagan.

Our army should DIRECTLY protect AMERICA, not America's empire of military bases strewn across the globe, but we should use our position as world leaders to influence global diplomacy.

Yes I can see that you have a firm grasp on U.S. history and Foreign Policy beyond Reagan. After all it was only a few short years before Reagan in 1801 (and only 12 years after the adoption of the current U.S. Constitution) when Thomas Jefferson sent the then fledgling U.S. Navy to deal with the Barbary Pirates from 1801-1805.

By the way we did not send our troops to protect our "imperial" military bases in Afghanistan but rather we established bases in Afghanistan to protect our citizens from attack.

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 12:30 PM
Yes I can see that you have a firm grasp on U.S. history and Foreign Policy beyond Reagan. After all it was only a few short years before Reagan in 1801 (and only 12 years after the adoption of the current U.S. Constitution) when Thomas Jefferson sent the then fledgling U.S. Navy to deal with the Barbary Pirates from 1801-1805.

By the way we did not send our troops to protect our "imperial" military bases in Afghanistan but rather we established bases in Afghanistan to protect our citizens from attack.

and he sent the sloops to Barbary why?

Because AMERICAN ships were being attacked, forced to pay tribute, and pressganged into service for other countries.

Hence, DIRECT protection of AMERICANS.

kicking pirate *ss =/= illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, no matter how nasty, evil, and mustached the leader might be.

ChanSHS
10-09-2009, 12:30 PM
OH nooo

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object3/757/46/n38885133323_3907.jpg

tayb
10-09-2009, 12:34 PM
Yes I can see that you have a firm grasp on U.S. history and Foreign Policy beyond Reagan. After all it was only a few short years before Reagan in 1801 (and only 12 years after the adoption of the current U.S. Constitution) when Thomas Jefferson sent the then fledgling U.S. Navy to deal with the Barbary Pirates from 1801-1805.

By the way we did not send our troops to protect our "imperial" military bases in Afghanistan but rather we established bases in Afghanistan to protect our citizens from attack.

Uh, war was declared on America when Jefferson refused to pay a large sum of money. Not exactly the same scenario by ANY stretch of the imagination of what is currently going on in Afghanistan or why we went there. Care to cite any more examples in between 1801 and World War II where the United States had a policy other than isolationism?

Mong Hu
10-09-2009, 12:35 PM
Seems that you have outed yourself for predetermining that you will not agree with anything the President might say ever.

At least you have confirmed you are close minded.

I did not state anywhere in my post that I will never agree with Mr. Obama again so I am at a loss as to how you have come to the conclusion that I have predetermined that I will not agree with anything the President might ever say. I simply stated that I am surprised that I find myself in agreement with him again as it is not a position to which I have grown accustomed during his short 9 month tenure as President. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the content of my own post or perhaps you have already enlightened me in regards to the clarity of your own thought on the matter.

Mong Hu
10-09-2009, 12:37 PM
I want the smart Mong Hu back. :(

This one can't even quote properly...

And I for one would just like to see a smart Phoenix once:D

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 12:39 PM
And I for one would just like to see a smart Phoenix once:D

anytime you wanna come on down and meet me, I'd be glad to oblige.

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 12:39 PM
Uh, war was declared on America when Jefferson refused to pay a large sum of money. Not exactly the same scenario by ANY stretch of the imagination of what is currently going on in Afghanistan or why we went there. Care to cite any more examples in between 1801 and World War II where the United States had a policy other than isolationism?

and he's a history teacher :eek:

pied
10-09-2009, 12:40 PM
I did not state anywhere in my post that I will never agree with Mr. Obama again so I am at a loss as to how you have come to the conclusion that I have predetermined that I will not agree with anything the President might ever say. I simply stated that I am surprised that I find myself in agreement with him again as it is not a position to which I have grown accustomed during his short 9 month tenure as President. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the content of my own post or perhaps you have already enlightened me in regards to the clarity of your own thought on the matter.

Correct me if I am wrong, but people typically use the term, "It will be a cold day in hell" when they are describing something that will never happen.


That's they way you began your post. You are indicating that on some level you think you will never, or in this case, only twice agree with Obama.

It appears crystal clear to me. Obama comes out and says that it has rained in DFW the past day and you would find fault with it.

slcdragonfan
10-09-2009, 12:44 PM
People will start agreeing with Obama when he becomes a Republican. He can have the same policies. Of course, then others will start disagreeing with him. I think he should run next time as a Republomat or a Demopublican. I detest the fact that he is big-endian. I also detest the fact that he is little-endian. However, I like it that he is big-endian or little-endian. That is because he is lilliputian. Now, I jump through the mirror and go away....

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 12:47 PM
People will start agreeing with Obama when he becomes a Republican. He can have the same policies. Of course, then others will start disagreeing with him. I think he should run next time as a Republomat or a Demopublican. I detest the fact that he is big-endian. I also detest the fact that he is little-endian. However, I like it that he is big-endian or little-endian. That is because he is lilliputian. Now, I jump through the mirror and go away....

I like the fact that some people still have an appreciation for classic literature.:cool:

pied
10-09-2009, 12:47 PM
People will start agreeing with Obama when he becomes a Republican. He can have the same policies. Of course, then others will start disagreeing with him. I think he should run next time as a Republomat or a Demopublican. I detest the fact that he is big-endian. I also detest the fact that he is little-endian. However, I like it that he is big-endian or little-endian. That is because he is lilliputian. Now, I jump through the mirror and go away....

Post of the day? the week?


Well done.

tayb
10-09-2009, 12:49 PM
I like the fact that some people still have an appreciation for classic literature.:cool:

You are taking digital logic right?

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 12:51 PM
You are taking digital logic right?

propositional.

I'm also aware of the usage in computing theory, but I much prefer Gulliver.

tayb
10-09-2009, 12:52 PM
propositional.

I'm also aware of the usage in computing theory, but I much prefer Gulliver.

That's what I think when I see it... byte order baby... bytes...

Mong Hu
10-09-2009, 12:54 PM
and he sent the sloops to Barbary why?

Because AMERICAN ships were being attacked, forced to pay tribute, and pressganged into service for other countries.

Hence, DIRECT protection of AMERICANS.

kicking pirate *ss =/= illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, no matter how nasty, evil, and mustached the leader might be.

Yes and we invaded Afghanistan why? Because terrorists, part of an organization which was harbored and indeed sponsored by Afghanistan, had attacked and killed thousands of American citizens (2976 some of which may indeed not have been U.S. citizens but undoubtedly most were).

The point was simply that we have a long history of deploying our military beyond our borders in order to protect American interests. A point which you did not recognize and in fact argued against in your original post. If you do not believe that was the point you were making then you failed to understand panthers original post in which he asked if we should withdraw our troops and protect only our own borders.


so what do we do? Withdraw and return to protecting only our borders?

You said that was the American thing to do.


That is absolutely the American thing to do, and you would realize this if you had any grasp on the history of American foreign policy beyond Reagan.

Mong Hu
10-09-2009, 12:59 PM
Uh, war was declared on America when Jefferson refused to pay a large sum of money. Not exactly the same scenario by ANY stretch of the imagination of what is currently going on in Afghanistan or why we went there. Care to cite any more examples in between 1801 and World War II where the United States had a policy other than isolationism?

Uh,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Story.crash.sequence.jpg

good thing I don't have to use my imagination.

If cutting down a flagstaff in front of a U.S. embassy is an act of war then the pictures above should certainly qualify as well. Please know your history.

slcdragonfan
10-09-2009, 01:00 PM
You are taking digital logic right?

I am not talking about DEC VAX 'puters. Get with the program! "One pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small....""

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 01:00 PM
Yes and we invaded Afghanistan why? Because terrorists, part of an organization which was harbored and indeed sponsored by Afghanistan, had attacked and killed thousands of American citizens (2976 some of which may indeed not have been U.S. citizens but undoubtedly most were).

The point was simply that we have a long history of deploying our military beyond our borders in order to protect American interests. A point which you did not recognize and in fact argued against in your original post. If you do not believe that was the point you were making then you failed to understand panthers original post in which he asked if we should withdraw our troops and protect only our own borders.



You said that was the American thing to do.
I sorely wish you could support your point without resorting to deceptive quote picking. What I said was

Our army should DIRECTLY protect AMERICA, not America's empire of military bases strewn across the globe, but we should use our position as world leaders to influence global diplomacy.
Invading Afghanistan to disrupt/destroy Al Qaeda was an appropriate action. Invading Iraq on false claims of WMD's/AQ links was not. Staying and trying to build Western democracies in nations that never have been and likely never will be western democracies was not. Neither of these two are remotely American (in the ideal) actions to take.

Try making a point honestly next time, instead of misquoting me, please.

tayb
10-09-2009, 01:00 PM
Uh,


good thing I don't have to use my imagination.

If cutting down a flagstaff in front of a U.S. embassy is an act of war then the pictures above should certainly qualify as well. Please know your history.

Can you tell me which country attacked the world trade towers? A country please.

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 01:01 PM
I am not talking about DEC VAX 'puters. Get with the program! "One pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small....""
If you haven't, listen to the Blue Man Group song "White Rabbit" off of Complex. I love it. :D

Mong Hu
10-09-2009, 01:02 PM
anytime you wanna come on down and meet me, I'd be glad to oblige.

I would actually love to meet you some day. I really do enjoy the sparing back and forth and if the opportunity ever presented itself I would be most honored, fortunate, and no doubt richer for the experience. This is said with no note of sarcasm but rather a genuine feeling of respect for a worthy adversary and I hope a friend.

slcdragonfan
10-09-2009, 01:04 PM
If you haven't, listen to the Blue Man Group song "White Rabbit" off of Complex. I love it. :D

Got it. Love it. Saw them do it live!

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 01:04 PM
I would actually love to meet you some day. I really do enjoy the sparring back and forth and if the opportunity ever presented itself I would be most honored, fortunate, and no doubt richer for the experience. This is said with no note of sarcasm but rather a genuine feeling of respect for a worthy adversary and I hope a friend.
you can only be my friend if you learn to spell :p

no seriously, meeting all the KT people was an awesome time and I hope to have lunch with Firebird here at some point.

COUGH COUGH

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 01:06 PM
Got it. Love it. Saw them do it live!
people discount their ability as songwriters only because Complex is severely under-distributed. It's one of my favorite albums.

I saw them in Orlando. SPECTACULAR.

pied
10-09-2009, 01:08 PM
Another thing to piss people off....


President Obama will donate the nearly $1.4 million award from his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to charity, White House says.

http://www.cnn.com/

Mong Hu
10-09-2009, 01:10 PM
you can only be my friend if you learn to spell :p

no seriously, meeting all the KT people was an awesome time and I hope to have lunch with Firebird here at some point.

COUGH COUGH

Sadley thin ther is no hoep for our evintuall meating as I hav and most likly alwaes will be a horible speler. :(

Pinion
10-09-2009, 01:11 PM
Another thing to piss people off....



http://www.cnn.com/

him being a socialist, I expect nothing less. And I'm not taking a shot, I'm being quite serious.

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 01:14 PM
him being a socialist, I expect nothing less. And I'm not taking a shot, I'm being quite serious.
HOW DARE HE DONATE TO CHARITY!
http://www.herecomestheboss.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/chris-crocker.jpg

pied
10-09-2009, 01:17 PM
him being a socialist, I expect nothing less. And I'm not taking a shot, I'm being quite serious.

Not a political scientist, but wouldn't a socialist give the money to the state for them to distribute, not an individual charity to give to a narrow group?

Pinion
10-09-2009, 01:19 PM
Not a political scientist, but wouldn't a socialist give the money to the state for them to distribute, not an individual charity to give to a narrow group?

ah. good call. very good call indeed. You are 100% correct on that.

I still wasnt trying to take a shot.

Me personally, I am all in favor of charities. As long as they arent getting money from the government. I am, however, not a fan of the government being a charity.

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 01:20 PM
Not a political scientist, but wouldn't a socialist give the money to the state for them to distribute, not an individual charity to give to a narrow group?
http://macrochan.org/images/H/J/HJ4PDVDJKLODMZUDUCNTCHP6TP3XU7X6.gif

drgnbkr
10-09-2009, 01:20 PM
He should apply it toward the fuel he wastes to go pick it up on Air Force One...Or on his total waste of time in Copenhagen on separate planes with wifey..

pied
10-09-2009, 01:21 PM
ah. good call. very good call indeed. You are 100% correct on that.

I still wasnt trying to take a shot.

Me personally, I am all in favor of charities. As long as they arent getting money from the government. I am, however, not a fan of the government being a charity.

Since almost all charities are tax-exempt, aren't they all receiving money fromthe government? Besides that point, why would you be against it?

Understood about the govt. being a charity.

Pinion
10-09-2009, 01:28 PM
Since almost all charities are tax-exempt, aren't they all receiving money fromthe government? Besides that point, why would you be against it?

Understood about the govt. being a charity.

I dont consider tax exempt a government money thing. they arent getting money from the government. they just arent paying any in. That's not the same thing.

I still am a big fan of my idea: no tax monies used for any form of welfare and more people will give to charities. (thats a very basic explanation).

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 01:47 PM
And your thoughts on welfare to Agricultural, corporate and any countries?

I dont consider tax exempt a government money thing. they arent getting money from the government. they just arent paying any in. That's not the same thing.

I still am a big fan of my idea: no tax monies used for any form of welfare and more people will give to charities. (thats a very basic explanation).

Pinion
10-09-2009, 02:11 PM
And your thoughts on welfare to Agricultural, corporate and any countries?



again, tax exempt is not the same as the government handing out money. On that note, I am against the governement handing out money. To any business. country. whomever.
In an emergency, it's one thing. but just to do it is another.

And by that, I mean if some country gets hit by a natural disaster, we should (morally) help them out. but to just set them up and fund them, no. we certainly should not.

yankee
10-09-2009, 02:21 PM
i read the entire thread...never saw anyone give a few good reasons why he deserved to win the award. apparently, obama wasn't sure either. :p




go america.

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 02:22 PM
i read the entire thread...never saw anyone give a few good reasons why he deserved to win the award. apparently, obama wasn't sure either. :p




go america.
I don't think he deserved it.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 02:24 PM
So if a responsible citizen gets hit by a natural disaster should our country not (morally) help them out?
After all, they do pay taxes to and therefore fund the government.
again, tax exempt is not the same as the government handing out money. On that note, I am against the governement handing out money. To any business. country. whomever.
In an emergency, it's one thing. but just to do it is another.

And by that, I mean if some country gets hit by a natural disaster, we should (morally) help them out. but to just set them up and fund them, no. we certainly should not.

Pinion
10-09-2009, 02:27 PM
So if a responsible citizen gets hit by a natural disaster should our country not (morally) help them out?
After all, they do pay taxes to and therefore fund the government.

If my house is in the middle of nowhere and gets hit by a tornado, that's what insurance is for and if the community wants to pitch in, that would be great. And really, the community should. that's what makes a community.

If my community is hit by a devastating tornado, then I would have no problem with the government helping out. The federal government though? not so much.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 02:31 PM
Then you feel FEMA should be dismantled?
Leave it all up to All-State and neighbors?

If my house is in the middle of nowhere and gets hit by a tornado, that's what insurance is for and if the community wants to pitch in, that would be great. And really, the community should. that's what makes a community.

If my community is hit by a devastating tornado, then I would have no problem with the government helping out. The federal government though? not so much.

drgnbkr
10-09-2009, 02:33 PM
Then you feel FEMA should be dismantled?
Leave it all up to All-State and neighbors?

FEMA isn't dismantled?

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 02:34 PM
You don't know?
FEMA isn't dismantled?

drgnbkr
10-09-2009, 02:35 PM
You don't know?

I don't know what I don't know...:p

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 02:37 PM
Then I can't help you.........:notworthy
I don't know what I don't know...:p

Pinion
10-09-2009, 02:38 PM
Then you feel FEMA should be dismantled?
Leave it all up to All-State and neighbors?

I sure do.

Let the states take care of that sort of thing.
It's not that I'm against the government. But I think more things need to be left in control of the states.

And the states do have the money to take care of these disasters and such. They just wont because they know that the feds will come in and "take care" of it if something happens.

A state standing there with their hand out waiting on the federal government to put money in it is what happens with a welfare child grows up. :D:eek:

we need less federal government and more responsibility with our state and local governments.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 02:40 PM
Wonder what some of the people criticizing would say if GW won "Man of The Year" in 2009........lol

yankee
10-09-2009, 02:45 PM
Wonder what some of the people criticizing would say if GW won "Man of The Year" in 2009........lol

we would probably dodge the issue of why he deserves to get it and get all pissy about any detractors......kind of like some people i've seen around here.

pied
10-09-2009, 02:48 PM
Wonder what some of the people criticizing would say if GW won "Man of The Year" in 2009........lol

Hard to find any fault at all with the way Bush has carried himself this year in my opinion. Of course I love me some Bush.

crunked9
10-09-2009, 02:49 PM
People should want to want to do this dishes! Duh!

ktCarl
10-09-2009, 03:01 PM
So. I've got 2 Nobel Peace prizes and I use them to put on each side of an ear of corn to eat with.

DrEdward
10-09-2009, 03:48 PM
Unlike the other prizes awarded by the Committee, the Peace Prize has become virtually a completely political "joke," especailly considering some of the recent individuals to whom it has been awarded. This season they have decided that Obama's speech writers have provided him with an excellent lexicon to express his ambitions, no matter how naive those may seem to many. Okay, he won and did an excellent job of delivering those speeches when the prompter was working properly; congratulations Mr. President.

drgnbkr
10-09-2009, 04:03 PM
Wonder what some of the people criticizing would say if GW won "Man of The Year" in 2009........lol

I think he is pretty comfortable in his retirement mode...As a non factor on the political stage, he has accomplished more than his successor...:p

ktCarl
10-09-2009, 04:34 PM
I sorely wish you could support your point without resorting to deceptive quote picking. What I said was

Invading Afghanistan to disrupt/destroy Al Qaeda was an appropriate action. Invading Iraq on false claims of WMD's/AQ links was not. Staying and trying to build Western democracies in nations that never have been and likely never will be western democracies was not. Neither of these two are remotely American (in the ideal) actions to take.

Try making a point honestly next time, instead of misquoting me, please.

Remember that the 'false claims' was perpetrated by the U.N. and intelligence info supplied to the Clinton and Bush administrations.

B-T-W, I agree with your disdain with the Nation building the US participates in. The 'blow back' from these actions will always 'blow up' in our faces.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rHtlKSeIJg

rwilleby
10-09-2009, 04:54 PM
I'm sending in KTCarl's name for next years award... He has done more to spread the peace than Obam's done in the last nine months...

We need more cowbell!!!!

DiamondJ2
10-09-2009, 05:04 PM
i read the entire thread...never saw anyone give a few good reasons why he deserved to win the award. apparently, obama wasn't sure either. :p




go america.

And still no answer to your question.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 05:18 PM
How about you naming a few good reasons for someone to win it and then naming which of the nominees deserved it?
Bet you never cared in your life.

i read the entire thread...never saw anyone give a few good reasons why he deserved to win the award. apparently, obama wasn't sure either. :p




go america.

yankee
10-09-2009, 05:23 PM
How about you naming a few good reasons for someone to win it and then naming which of the nominees deserved it?
Bet you never cared in your life.

inventing the internet and proclaiming the over-heating of our earth? do those count professor??

rwilleby
10-09-2009, 05:24 PM
Martin Luther King Jr.

Deserved it.

drgnbkr
10-09-2009, 05:28 PM
inventing the internet and proclaiming the over-heating of our earth? do those count professor??

Both fabrications of an over ego'd mind...

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 05:31 PM
Not the fastest Bunny in the forst are you?
Inventing the internet has exactly what to do with any form of peace?
You are not qualified to answer or ask anything involving a Nobel Peace Prize. How the heck can you qualify a winner?
lol;););)

inventing the internet and proclaiming the over-heating of our earth? do those count professor??

JMSFan
10-09-2009, 05:31 PM
Martin Luther King Jr.

Deserved it.

True.

Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer too.

yankee
10-09-2009, 05:37 PM
Not the fastest Bunny in the forst are you?
Inventing the internet has exactly what to do with any form of peace?
You are not qualified to answer or ask anything involving a Nobel Peace Prize. How the heck can you qualify a winner?
lol;););)

/facepalm.




someone needs to turn their sarcasometer on.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 05:38 PM
You do that to yourself a lot eh?
:D
/facepalm.




someone needs to turn their sarcasometer on.

yankee
10-09-2009, 05:40 PM
You do that to yourself a lot eh?
:D

yes...there are a TON of idiots on this board.

E-Vol-ution
10-09-2009, 05:43 PM
A couple of folks must only have one foot on the scale.:D:D
yes...there are a TON of idiots on this board.

mad_fan
10-09-2009, 06:28 PM
I think they did it to make the BCS look good. This is a Win-Win for the USofA.

DragonBand06
10-09-2009, 08:37 PM
Not the fastest Bunny in the forst are you?
Inventing the internet has exactly what to do with any form of peace?
You are not qualified to answer or ask anything involving a Nobel Peace Prize. How the heck can you qualify a winner?
lol;););)http://www.facepalm.org/img.php (http://www.facepalm.org/img.php)

DragonBand06
10-09-2009, 08:39 PM
P.S. What I love about that /\ post is that every time you load the page the img is different :D

the_phoenix612
10-09-2009, 09:06 PM
P.S. What I love about that ^ post is that every time you load the page the img is different :D
fify

69matador
10-09-2009, 11:24 PM
Unlike the other prizes awarded by the Committee, the Peace Prize has become virtually a completely political "joke," especailly considering some of the recent individuals to whom it has been awarded. This season they have decided that Obama's speech writers have provided him with an excellent lexicon to express his ambitions, no matter how naive those may seem to many. Okay, he won and did an excellent job of delivering those speeches when the prompter was working properly; congratulations Mr. President.

Yep, wouldn't it have been nice if Obama would have stepped up to the podium and spoke from the heart about winning the award instead of looking down and reading from a piece of paper that someone else may have written for him? I'm wondering if Obama might be the 2nd coming of Chauncey the garden(the Peter Sellers character in the movie Being There) Of course we don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but the appearance is that all Obama has done is talk a good game, but actions speak louder than words. It's a Peace award and there's not even peace in the USA for instance look at how peaceful the town hall meetings are about health care or the peace in the halls of congress;)

okt0ber
10-10-2009, 01:37 AM
What a crock of poo. We aren't anymore a peace now than a year ago. Makes me sick.

GoOwls
10-10-2009, 05:57 AM
OK, all you appeasers and accomodators and excuse makers....answer me this....exactly what has Obama done to deserve this once meaningful award? What has he accomplished?

Don't think too long...your head will explode trying to reason something out...;)

Please, enlighten me.....and don't use his speaches as reasons....words are empty without actions.

BTW, I stopped a fight out on my mail route today, counciled the two combatants, they shook hands, and an all out war was averted.....since I actually did something to bring peace, I'm more qualified that Obama....I expect to be nominated for the award next year.....but I won't win, I'm not seen as a progressive liberal by the international intelectual elite....:eek:

ktCarl
10-10-2009, 09:07 AM
Martin Luther King Jr.

Deserved it.


Mohandis Ghandi was nominated 5 times and never received the prize. The Prez gets it on first vote after serving 9 mos as POTUS. Is that ironic, unbelievable or just crazy?

rwilleby
10-10-2009, 09:43 AM
Mohandis Ghandi was nominated 5 times and never received the prize. The Prez gets it on first vote after serving 9 mos as POTUS. Is that ironic, unbelievable or just crazy?

It's a downright shame...

E-Vol-ution
10-10-2009, 09:52 AM
Duh......it was crazy......all you have to do is look at the back of your hand and figure out the difference. In the late 30's and early 40's, India was still under heavy British influence. That's why he never won.
Obviously...attitudes have changed with many people.
Mohandis Ghandi was nominated 5 times and never received the prize. The Prez gets it on first vote after serving 9 mos as POTUS. Is that ironic, unbelievable or just crazy?

E-Vol-ution
10-10-2009, 09:53 AM
I agree.......think about it; you know what was up with that.
It's a downright shame...

rwilleby
10-10-2009, 10:02 AM
Duh......it was crazy......all you have to do is look at the back of your hand and figure out the difference. In the late 30's and early 40's, India was still under heavy British influence. That's why he never won.
Obviously...attitudes have changed with many people.

Right, now you don't have to do anything, just say you will...

E-Vol-ution
10-10-2009, 10:35 AM
So you're complaining because you think who should have won?
Right, now you don't have to do anything, just say you will...

rwilleby
10-10-2009, 10:40 AM
So you're complaining because you think who should have won?

Oh, probably one of the hundreds of people nominated who actually did something that had a result... But we won't know the who's until 2059... Then we can debate the merits of what Obama has not accomplished compared to what the others might have...

assuming we can still speak out and not go to jail...

BDB
10-10-2009, 12:23 PM
http://www.oldeschoolhonour.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/obamatfront.jpg

rwilleby
10-10-2009, 12:31 PM
Funny... Again, no substance... Seems to be a trend when one has nothing to stand on...

tayb
10-10-2009, 12:32 PM
So you're complaining because you think who should have won?

I should have won. Me personally.

drgnbkr
10-10-2009, 12:41 PM
Mohandis Ghandi was nominated 5 times and never received the prize. The Prez gets it on first vote after serving 9 mos as POTUS. Is that ironic, unbelievable or just crazy?

Actually, they voted on it back in March when he had not yet trashed our economy, jacked the deficit to world record levels, apologized to the world and abandoned our troops..He had been hard at work for 11 days...Makes sense to me!

rwilleby
10-10-2009, 12:48 PM
Actually, they voted on it back in March when he had not yet trashed our economy, jacked the deficit to world record levels, apologized to the world and abandoned our troops..He had been hard at work for 11 days...Makes sense to me!

Oh, then never mind. :notworthy

slcdragonfan
10-10-2009, 12:58 PM
no, Obama really doesn't deserve this award, I can't believe he awarded it to himself. What was he thinking? :D

E-Vol-ution
10-10-2009, 02:38 PM
Now I question your age and education........wow.:rolleyes:
Oh, probably one of the hundreds of people nominated who actually did something that had a result... But we won't know the who's until 2059... Then we can debate the merits of what Obama has not accomplished compared to what the others might have...

assuming we can still speak out and not go to jail...

rwilleby
10-10-2009, 03:04 PM
Now I question your age and education........wow.:rolleyes:

Please explain.

rwilleby
10-10-2009, 03:13 PM
cut and paste...
----
Nobel Laureates receive the Nobel Prize in recognition of their achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, or peace.
----
The committee said 172 individuals and 33 organizations were on the list by this week's final deadline.
----
The secretive five-member awards committee, which released its final nominations count on Friday, keeps the names of candidates secret for 50 years. But some of the thousands of people with nominating rights do announce their nominees.
----
Please educate me on where I have erred...

BDB
10-10-2009, 03:24 PM
no, Obama really doesn't deserve this award, I can't believe he awarded it to himself. What was he thinking? :D

i lol'd :notworthy

GoOwls
10-10-2009, 05:52 PM
Two weeks into his presidency is much like 9 months.....we are still in Iraq....we are probably escalating in Afghanisatan.....he made a woefully unsuccessful plea for the Olympics for Chicago....he has spent us into an impending inflation of epic proportions....

Yep, sounds like the qualifications for a man of peace and a man of his word (empty campaign promises)

Yes, the world does rejoice when we have men of weakness for them to exploit....Carter, Gore, Obama....:(


OK, all you appeasers and accomodators and excuse makers....answer me this....exactly what has Obama done to deserve this once meaningful award? What has he accomplished?

Don't think too long...your head will explode trying to reason something out...;)

Please, enlighten me.....and don't use his speaches as reasons....words are empty without actions.

BTW, I stopped a fight out on my mail route today, counciled the two combatants, they shook hands, and an all out war was averted.....since I actually did something to bring peace, I'm more qualified that Obama....I expect to be nominated for the award next year.....but I won't win, I'm not seen as a progressive liberal by the international intelectual elite....:eek:

I still waiting.......:rolleyes:

I noticed e vol ignored my post......got nothing in that bag, huh?

Come on, pied, pull out the old trusty excuse thesarus.....;)

the_phoenix612
10-10-2009, 07:05 PM
I still waiting.......:rolleyes:

I noticed e vol ignored my post......got nothing in that bag, huh?

Come on, pied, pull out the old trusty excuse thesarus.....;)

According to the rules, the prize is awarded, not for lifelong achievement, but to the one who has done the most to create an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation over the past year.http://www.theroot.com/views/why-obama-deserves-nobel-peace-prize

darn those rules and facts. They keep getting in your way.

DragonBand06
10-10-2009, 07:07 PM
http://www.theroot.com/views/why-obama-deserves-nobel-peace-prizeSo while he was on the campaign trail he was also abroad working for peace? Cause I don't seem to remember all that. Recall that he was nominated 2 weeks into his taking office.

the_phoenix612
10-10-2009, 07:12 PM
So while he was on the campaign trail he was also abroad working for peace? Cause I don't seem to remember all that. Recall that he was nominated 2 weeks into his taking office.
According to the rules, the prize is awarded, not for lifelong achievement, but to the one who has done the most to create an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation over the past year.

there's your key statement. Take a look at worldwide approval ratings of the US before he was elected and after. A well-liked America is good for world peace.

mad_fan
10-10-2009, 07:28 PM
According to the rules, the prize is awarded, not for lifelong achievement, but to the one who has done the most to create an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation over the past year.

there's your key statement. Take a look at worldwide approval ratings of the US before he was elected and after. A well-liked America is good for world peace.

lmao @ worldwide approval ratings.
I remember the peace and reconciliation he was bring down on Hillary. :notworthy

E-Vol-ution
10-10-2009, 07:47 PM
I gave the answer......and you still never said who you felt deserved the award.

I still waiting.......:rolleyes:

I noticed e vol ignored my post......got nothing in that bag, huh?

Come on, pied, pull out the old trusty excuse thesarus.....;)

mad_fan
10-10-2009, 07:56 PM
I gave the answer......and you still never said who you felt deserved the award.

GW Bush. He deserves it just as much for leaving office as Obama had it coming for taking office.

DragonBand06
10-10-2009, 08:29 PM
According to the rules, the prize is awarded, not for lifelong achievement, but to the one who has done the most to create an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation over the past year.

there's your key statement. Take a look at worldwide approval ratings of the US before he was elected and after. A well-liked America is good for world peace.I.E. He just got it for being popular. Yeah let's start handing out awards for popularity now. Mr. Rogers deserved this award more than Obama.

yankee
10-10-2009, 08:58 PM
According to the rules, the prize is awarded, not for lifelong achievement, but to the one who has done the most to create an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation over the past year.

there's your key statement. Take a look at worldwide approval ratings of the US before he was elected and after. A well-liked America is good for world peace.

so because he was popular, is justification for him receiving the award?
and as db06 state, he was nominated just 2 weeks into office. did he really create that much world peace while on the campaign trail in the united states??? damn, i must have missed that.

the_phoenix612
10-10-2009, 09:00 PM
so because he was popular, is justification for him receiving the award?
and as db06 state, he was nominated just 2 weeks into office. did he really create that much world peace while on the campaign trail in the united states??? damn, i must have missed that.
I do believe the Nobel committee saw the overnight jump in approval ratings when he was elected. THAT he did do in 2 weeks.

Do you dispute the assertion that a popular America is good for world peace?

mad_fan
10-10-2009, 09:02 PM
I do believe the Nobel committee saw the overnight jump in approval ratings when he was elected. THAT he did do in 2 weeks.

Do you dispute the assertion that a popular America is good for world peace?


Hitler was popular.

yankee
10-10-2009, 09:04 PM
I do believe the Nobel committee saw the overnight jump in approval ratings when he was elected. THAT he did do in 2 weeks.

Do you dispute the assertion that a popular America is good for world peace?

apparently we're still popular, and terrorists are still trying to blow us up, north korea still hates us, and so does iran. still seems like the same situation we were in with bush.

mad_fan
10-10-2009, 09:11 PM
Hitler was popular.

and should have received a peace prize in 1934 for his works against communism.

the_phoenix612
10-10-2009, 09:12 PM
apparently we're still popular, and terrorists are still trying to blow us up, north korea still hates us, and so does iran. still seems like the same situation we were in with bush.
that'd be a yes?

mad_fan
10-10-2009, 09:15 PM
apparently we're still popular, and terrorists are still trying to blow us up, north korea still hates us, and so does iran. still seems like the same situation we were in with bush.

Nancy would have liked him to pull out sooner.
:)

E-Vol-ution
10-10-2009, 09:27 PM
GW will go down in infamy........I'll leave it at that.
GW Bush. He deserves it just as much for leaving office as Obama had it coming for taking office.

mad_fan
10-10-2009, 09:29 PM
GW will go down in infamy........I'll leave it at that.

Obama will go down. I'll leave it at that.

liveball
10-10-2009, 09:36 PM
You guys really don't like Obama, I get it. But you have to admit that he has done more to lead the world toward peace than anyone else has in the last 8 years. Probably would have the troups home by now if it were not for the constant barrage of attacks from radical republicans who still want to justify our occupation policy in the middle east. Be that as it may, the Nobel is just like the Heisman, you may disagree about who got one and why but you can't take it away from them so....... SCOREBOARD.

mad_fan
10-10-2009, 09:38 PM
You guys really don't like Obama, I get it. But you have to admit that he has done more to lead the world toward peace than anyone else has in the last 8 years. Probably would have the troups home by now if it were not for the constant barrage of attacks from radical republicans who still want to justify our occupation policy in the middle east. Be that as it may, the Nobel is just like the Heisman, you may disagree about who got one and why but you can't take it away from them so....... SCOREBOARD.

List them.

yankee
10-10-2009, 09:49 PM
You guys really don't like Obama, I get it. But you have to admit that he has done more to lead the world toward peace than anyone else has in the last 8 years. could you point them out? Probably would have the troups home by now if it were not for the constant barrage of attacks from radical republicans who still want to justify our occupation policy in the middle east. we'll always have troops in the middle east, so you better get used to that. and no it's not because of those darned radical republicans. Be that as it may, the Nobel is just like the Heisman, you may disagree about who got one and why but you can't take it away from them so....... SCOREBOARD. but you can still argue about it.

...

mad_fan
10-10-2009, 09:49 PM
Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Barrack Obama.
This has got to piss Bill Clinton off.

mad_fan
10-10-2009, 09:53 PM
List them.

I'll help:
Pulling out of Iraq
Pulling out of Afghanistan
Closing Guantanamo Bay

You can finish up

slcdragonfan
10-11-2009, 12:18 AM
Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Barrack Obama.
This has got to piss Bill Clinton off.

Bill got his award.

Signed,

Monica.

mad_fan
10-11-2009, 12:44 AM
Bill got his award.

Signed,

Monica.

Monica got a short stick.

Signed,

The Secretary of State

svhorns
10-11-2009, 12:53 AM
http://rlv.zcache.com/obama_fist_bump_t_shirt-p235572078204939744uye8_400.jpg

yankee
10-11-2009, 02:18 AM
that'd be a yes?

negative.

rwilleby
10-11-2009, 07:02 AM
http://www.theroot.com/views/why-obama-deserves-nobel-peace-prize

darn those rules and facts. They keep getting in your way.

The Nobel web site says...
----
Nobel Laureates receive the Nobel Prize in recognition of their achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, or peace.
----
Interesting...

JMSFan
10-11-2009, 10:15 AM
http://www.theroot.com/views/why-obama-deserves-nobel-peace-prize

darn those rules and facts. They keep getting in your way.

First off, you didnt get the facts right.

And here is a real accurate view of how the rest of the world feels about Obama getting this award.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtjRbjiHYgQ

liveball
10-11-2009, 10:41 AM
1. The only leader of a major country to publicly denounce the idea of a war without an exit stragedy or clear objective other than "we will be there until we agree with whats going on."
2. The only person in the last 8 years to actually do something about GITMO, a facility who's daily practices pushed the envelope of the definition of War Crimes.
3. He has met with several leaders of foreign countries not considered friendly to America to repair relations.
4. He facilitated an amicable end to a high profile racial incident that could have torn this country further apart. Using it to model how ordinary people can help to change perceptions.
5. He hasn't dropped Bush in the grease.

But since the criteria is yearly, I challenge you to name somebody who has done more than that in any one year in the past eight years.

drgnbkr
10-11-2009, 01:39 PM
1. The only leader of a major country to publicly denounce the idea of a war without an exit stragedy or clear objective other than "we will be there until we agree with whats going on."
2. The only person in the last 8 years to actually do something about GITMO, a facility who's daily practices pushed the envelope of the definition of War Crimes.
3. He has met with several leaders of foreign countries not considered friendly to America to repair relations.
4. He facilitated an amicable end to a high profile racial incident that could have torn this country further apart. Using it to model how ordinary people can help to change perceptions.
5. He hasn't dropped Bush in the grease.

But since the criteria is yearly, I challenge you to name somebody who has done more than that in any one year in the past eight years.

Wow...he has no strategy in Afghanistan, gitmo is a country club compared to the homes these guys live in, he has been on an apology tour embarrassing his own country, what racial incident? The professor was a fool, obama made a fool of himself by speaking without the facts calling the cops stupid....Still waiting for him do anything other than screw up.

BDB
10-11-2009, 01:45 PM
Wow...he has no strategy in Afghanistan, gitmo is a country club compared to the homes these guys live in, he has been on an apology tour embarrassing his own country, what racial incident? The professor was a fool, obama made a fool of himself by speaking without the facts calling the cops stupid....Still waiting for him do anything other than screw up.

cool.... you gave em walls without holes in it..... but then there's waterboarding.

rwilleby
10-11-2009, 02:10 PM
cool.... you gave em walls without holes in it..... but then there's waterboarding.

Paul M. Johnson, Jr.
Daniel Pearl
Nick Berg

Gitmo was a daycare...

BDB
10-11-2009, 02:12 PM
nm

slcdragonfan
10-11-2009, 02:13 PM
nm

yankee
10-11-2009, 02:16 PM
1. The only leader of a major country to publicly denounce the idea of a war without an exit stragedy or clear objective other than "we will be there until we agree with whats going on."
2. The only person in the last 8 years to actually do something about GITMO, a facility who's daily practices pushed the envelope of the definition of War Crimes.
3. He has met with several leaders of foreign countries not considered friendly to America to repair relations.
4. He facilitated an amicable end to a high profile racial incident that could have torn this country further apart. Using it to model how ordinary people can help to change perceptions.
5. He hasn't dropped Bush in the grease.

But since the criteria is yearly, I challenge you to name somebody who has done more than that in any one year in the past eight years.

4 and 5 made me ROFL.

okt0ber
10-11-2009, 02:41 PM
I do believe the Nobel committee saw the overnight jump in approval ratings when he was elected. THAT he did do in 2 weeks.

Do you dispute the assertion that a popular America is good for world peace?

I don't want to fall to the level of world panderer just so the nut cases don't bomb something, sorry.

the_phoenix612
10-11-2009, 02:47 PM
I don't want to fall to the level of world panderer just so the nut cases don't bomb something, sorry.
pandering =/= diplomacy.

that is an uniformed stance that makes us look like fools.

DragonBand06
10-11-2009, 03:36 PM
1. The only leader of a major country to publicly denounce the idea of a war without an exit stragedy or clear objective other than "we will be there until we agree with whats going on."
2. The only person in the last 8 years to actually do something about GITMO, a facility who's daily practices pushed the envelope of the definition of War Crimes.
3. He has met with several leaders of foreign countries not considered friendly to America to repair relations.
4. He facilitated an amicable end to a high profile racial incident that could have torn this country further apart. Using it to model how ordinary people can help to change perceptions.
5. He hasn't dropped Bush in the grease.

But since the criteria is yearly, I challenge you to name somebody who has done more than that in any one year in the past eight years.1. No other major countries are involved in large-scale wars.
2. Nobody outside the U.S. could do anything about GITMO, and other major countries don't have facilities of that type.
3. Going to talk with people =/= improving relations. If you nothing changes, you haven't accomplished anything.
4. "amicable end"? lol.
5. Not doing something dirty =/= accomplishing peace.

drgnbkr
10-11-2009, 03:42 PM
cool.... you gave em walls without holes in it..... but then there's waterboarding.

Cool, we just grabbed a bunch of lovable guys for no reason and threw em in gitmo...:rolleyes: And so what if we got them to give up vital info using a technique we use on our own guys for training?

BDB
10-11-2009, 06:22 PM
Cool, we just grabbed a bunch of lovable guys for no reason and threw em in gitmo...:rolleyes: And so what if we got them to give up vital info using a technique we use on our own guys for training?

so now we ARE the terrorists?

i mean if we're not better than them, then we're either equal or lesser than them. take your pick.

drgnbkr
10-11-2009, 06:42 PM
so now we ARE the terrorists?

i mean if we're not better than them, then we're either equal or lesser than them. take your pick.

I suppose if you don't think we're better than them, you've become a part of the hate America crowd...correct? Of course we're better than them, we don't strap bombs on our kids and send them into crowded marketplaces and churches...We don't fly planes into buildings thinking we'll find a place in heaven...It's amazing how forgetful some folks are.

rwilleby
10-11-2009, 06:48 PM
so now we ARE the terrorists?

i mean if we're not better than them, then we're either equal or lesser than them. take your pick.

By all measure, we are better...

BDB
10-11-2009, 06:50 PM
I suppose if you don't think we're better than them, you've become a part of the hate America crowd...correct? Of course we're better than them, we don't strap bombs on our kids and send them into crowded marketplaces and churches...We don't fly planes into buildings thinking we'll find a place in heaven...It's amazing how forgetful some folks are.

we only pull other crimes of war like waterboarding and killing of "insurgents".

rwilleby
10-11-2009, 06:56 PM
we only pull other crimes of war like waterboarding and killing of "insurgents".

Have you seen the Daniel Perl video... and then a waterboarding video?

I'll find you a link if you choose to see the difference.

mad_fan
10-11-2009, 06:58 PM
1. The only leader of a major country to publicly denounce the idea of a war without an exit stragedy or clear objective other than "we will be there until we agree with whats going on."
2. The only person in the last 8 years to actually do something about GITMO, a facility who's daily practices pushed the envelope of the definition of War Crimes.
3. He has met with several leaders of foreign countries not considered friendly to America to repair relations.
4. He facilitated an amicable end to a high profile racial incident that could have torn this country further apart. Using it to model how ordinary people can help to change perceptions.
5. He hasn't dropped Bush in the grease.

But since the criteria is yearly, I challenge you to name somebody who has done more than that in any one year in the past eight years.

WOW. What did he do the the 12th day? The day after the Committee voted him the award.

JMSFan
10-11-2009, 07:12 PM
Have you seen the Daniel Perl video... and then a waterboarding video?

I'll find you a link if you choose to see the difference.


He wont do it.

tayb
10-11-2009, 07:38 PM
what a noble man winning that noble prblze. He deserved it ebecause he is noble.

DiamondJ2
10-11-2009, 09:44 PM
1. The only leader of a major country to publicly denounce the idea of a war without an exit stragedy or clear objective other than "we will be there until we agree with whats going on."
2. The only person in the last 8 years to actually do something about GITMO, a facility who's daily practices pushed the envelope of the definition of War Crimes.
3. He has met with several leaders of foreign countries not considered friendly to America to repair relations.
4. He facilitated an amicable end to a high profile racial incident that could have torn this country further apart. Using it to model how ordinary people can help to change perceptions.5. He hasn't dropped Bush in the grease.

But since the criteria is yearly, I challenge you to name somebody who has done more than that in any one year in the past eight years.

Maybe he can help address the perception of high drop out rates and teen-age pregnancy.

drgnbkr
10-11-2009, 09:46 PM
we only pull other crimes of war like waterboarding and killing of "insurgents".

Wow, you are an America hater...What would you do...put the insurgents on our health care plan? When do you stop bending over and grabbing your cheeks?

pied
10-11-2009, 10:05 PM
I still waiting.......:rolleyes:

I noticed e vol ignored my post......got nothing in that bag, huh?

Come on, pied, pull out the old trusty excuse thesarus.....;)

I don't see any reason he should have won it. It puzzles me.

I have no idea why the past 5-10 winners should have won it either.

pied
10-11-2009, 10:06 PM
Maybe he can help address the perception of high drop out rates and teen-age pregnancy.

Didn't he try that and people went ape %^t and pulled their kids out of school.

pied
10-11-2009, 10:11 PM
Have you seen the Daniel Perl video... and then a waterboarding video?

I'll find you a link if you choose to see the difference.

I saw it. Some jack a^^ linked it and didn't indicate what the contents were. Super awesome to see, much less at work.

In any case, they are vastly different I agree, if that's the point. One was meant to sever a person's head as propaganda. One is simply to make someone feel they will die. It appears to me that making someone feel they are about to die if the water doesn't stop, while no where in the same ball park as beheading, does fit the definition of torture.

Now are we above torture?

GoOwls
10-12-2009, 03:53 AM
I don't see any reason he should have won it. It puzzles me.

I have no idea why the past 5-10 winners should have won it either.

;) :D

Hook 'Em

GoOwls
10-12-2009, 03:56 AM
Monica got a short stick.

Signed,

The Secretary of State

I LOL'ed.....in fact, I LMAO.....great line, Mad.....:D

GoOwls
10-12-2009, 04:08 AM
1. The only leader of a major country to publicly denounce the idea of a war without an exit stragedy or clear objective other than "we will be there until we agree with whats going on."
2. The only person in the last 8 years to actually do something about GITMO, a facility who's daily practices pushed the envelope of the definition of War Crimes.
3. He has met with several leaders of foreign countries not considered friendly to America to repair relations.
4. He facilitated an amicable end to a high profile racial incident that could have torn this country further apart. Using it to model how ordinary people can help to change perceptions.
5. He hasn't dropped Bush in the grease.

But since the criteria is yearly, I challenge you to name somebody who has done more than that in any one year in the past eight years.

The belief that Obama deserved this award after being voted for it just days after taking office is obviously a "Liveball Error".....:D

Stands junky
10-12-2009, 11:18 AM
what a noble man winning that noble prblze. He deserved it ebecause he is noble.

i think that was to me ;) thanks :p

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 07:54 PM
kicking pirate *ss =/= illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, no matter how nasty, evil, and mustached the leader might be.


Just so we are clear, Jefferson did in fact invade the state of Tripoli with out a declaration of war by the United States Congress. So we did in fact do a little more than simply sail around in international waters. We blockaded the Barbary states (Which is every bit as much an act of war as is an actual land invasion) and we did in fact invade and conquer Derna, a Tipolitan city. This represented the first time that the American flag was ever flown over a foreign territory. It is also the inspiration for the line in the Battle Hymn of the Republic to the shores of Tripoli. To be sure the invasion was no where near the scale of the invasion of Afghanistan but it was none the less an invasion of a foreign land by American military forces with out a formal declaration of war by the U.S. congress. Look it up.

the_phoenix612
10-12-2009, 07:56 PM
Just so we are clear, Jefferson did in fact invade the state of Tripoli with out a declaration of war by the United States Congress. So we did in fact do a little more than simply sail around in international waters. We blockaded the Barbary states (Which is every bit as much an act of war as is an actual land invasion) and we did in fact invade and conquer Derna, a Tipolitan city. This represented the first time that the American flag was ever flown over a foreign territory. It is also the inspiration for the line in the Battle Hymn of the Republic to the shores of Tripoli. To be sure the invasion was no where near the scale of the invasion of Afghanistan but it was none the less an invasion of a foreign land by American military forces with out a formal declaration of war by the U.S. congress. Look it up.
*headdesk*

WE went in, kicked ***, and left. It was not illegal, as they had attacked us first.

Iraq did not attack us.

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 08:07 PM
Care to cite any more examples in between 1801 and World War II where the United States had a policy other than isolationism?

Sorry that I have not had time to get back to you and answer your question before now but since you asked I can think of five examples off the top of my head in which the U.S. did not follow an isolationist policy in the described time period. The Spanish American war in 1898 or "the Splendid Little War" as it was described by John Hay at the time or our intervention in WWI by the administration of Woodrow Wilson would both be examples of the U.S. straying from its isolationist tendencies. This is to say nothing of the Panamanian war for independence or Teddy Roosevelt's policy of Dollar Diplomacy and our subsequent occupation of Nicaragua. I guess you could also point to our invasion of Mexico led by future President Zachary Taylor in 1846 (Don't you live in Texas?).

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 08:10 PM
*headdesk*

WE went in, kicked ***, and left. It was not illegal, as they had attacked us first.

Iraq did not attack us.

Phoenix the war in fact lasted for four years 1801-1805. I believe that you are the only poster who is referring to Iraq here. I guess when you loose an argument on the merits then you must try and change the argument.

the_phoenix612
10-12-2009, 08:11 PM
Sorry that I have not had time to get back to you and answer your question before now but since you asked I can think of five examples off the top of my head in which the U.S. did not follow an isolationist policy in the described time period. The Spanish American war in 1898 or "the Splendid Little War" as it was described by John Hay at the time or our intervention in WWI by the administration of Woodrow Wilson would both be examples of the U.S. straying from its isolationist tendencies. This is to say nothing of the Panamanian war for independence or Teddy Roosevelt's policy of Dollar Diplomacy and our subsequent occupation of Nicaragua. I guess you could also point to our invasion of Mexico led by future President Zachary Taylor in 1846 (Don't you live in Texas?).
should we then point to the years in the plural it took the American people to get around to supporting WWI? Or how about WWII?

Leave your neocon hawkishness at the door and really look at American history. please.

the_phoenix612
10-12-2009, 08:13 PM
Phoenix the war in fact lasted for four years 1801-1805. I believe that you are the only poster who is referring to Iraq here. I guess when you loose an argument on the merits then you must try and change the argument.
we were talking about withdrawing and protecting our borders. I supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan to decapitate and try to eradicate al Qaeda, but staying in Afghanistan and then invading Iraq were bad decisions.

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 08:19 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but people typically use the term, "It will be a cold day in hell" when they are describing something that will never happen.


That's they way you began your post. You are indicating that on some level you think you will never, or in this case, only twice agree with Obama.

It appears crystal clear to me. Obama comes out and says that it has rained in DFW the past day and you would find fault with it.

Pied, if I had said that it would be a cold day in :Censor: before I would ever agree with the man again then I think you have an argument. As it stands I was clearly using this particular figure of speech to illustrate my surprise at finding myself in agreement with our President yet again. I was also using a bit of hyperbole in order to make my point. I have in fact agreed with our President on more than one or two occasions. I agreed with Mr. Obama when he first sent additional troops to Afghanistan and I agreed with Mr. Obama's speech about the importance of fatherhood and I agreed with much of what Mr. Obama spoke of in his address to our nations school children. Still the clear pattern over the course of this administration is that I do not agree with the President on many issues. So despite an occasional point on which we may be in agreement I am on the whole surprised when I agree with what the man is saying. There I have expressed my view in a more rational manner with out sarcasm or the language to which you have taken offense. I apologize for trying to make my point with a bit of humor but as Firebird has pointed out in another thread I believe there are many who fail to appreciate conservative humor.

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 08:39 PM
should we then point to the years in the plural it took the American people to get around to supporting WWI? Or how about WWII?

Leave your neocon hawkishness at the door and really look at American history. please.

Excellent, you find yourself losing an argument on the merits and so now you employ yet another tactic, name calling. I am simply pointing out that in fact at many points in our history we have deployed American forces beyond our own borders to protect what we perceived at the time to be American interests (whether you agree or disagree with that in hindsight). While I agree that we have on the whole been a nation that has sought to leave others alone and to be left alone by others there is certainly historical precedent for foreign intervention beyond our borders which is in fact the issue with which you and tayb have chosen to take exception. I am sorry but we do in fact invade other countries with or with out a declaration of war to protect our interests not just our borders. This is supported by historical evidence as I have previously alluded to.

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 08:54 PM
I sorely wish you could support your point without resorting to deceptive quote picking. What I said was

Invading Afghanistan to disrupt/destroy Al Qaeda was an appropriate action. Invading Iraq on false claims of WMD's/AQ links was not. Staying and trying to build Western democracies in nations that never have been and likely never will be western democracies was not. Neither of these two are remotely American (in the ideal) actions to take.

Try making a point honestly next time, instead of misquoting me, please.

I am sorry I did not reference the latter part of your quote because I thought it would be obvious to anyone reading your post that you were in fact contradicting yourself. You said that the American thing to do would be to withdraw and protect only our own borders but then turned around and said that our army should directly protect America. Directly protecting America does not mean limiting our armed forces to our own borders and that is evidenced by the historical examples which I have referenced in my previous posts on the subject. The latter half of your post is not congruous with the first half.

Further you sound foolish when you speak of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq being to protect America's empire of military bases because we of course did not have any military bases in either of those two countries to protect prior to our invasions of those two countries. We in fact invaded both those countries because we viewed them as direct threats to American lives and property thus in both examples it was argued (you believe ineffectually) that both countries represented a direct threat to America. By your own argument then these invasions were in fact justified (except or course you do not believe that either country was a direct threat)


Our army should DIRECTLY protect AMERICA, not America's empire of military bases strewn across the globe, but we should use our position as world leaders to influence global diplomacy.

the_phoenix612
10-12-2009, 08:56 PM
Excellent, you find yourself losing an argument on the merits and so now you employ yet another tactic, name calling. I am simply pointing out that in fact at many points in our history we have deployed American forces beyond our own borders to protect what we perceived at the time to be American interests (whether you agree or disagree with that in hindsight). While I agree that we have on the whole been a nation that has sought to leave others alone and to be left alone by others there is certainly historical precedent for foreign intervention beyond our borders which is in fact the issue with which you and tayb have chosen to take exception. I am sorry but we do in fact invade other countries with or with out a declaration of war to protect our interests not just our borders. This is supported by historical evidence as I have previously alluded to.
Anyone who deems themselves a scholar of American history would laugh at the notion that unprovoked invasion of foreign nations is anything more than a fluky outlier.

the_phoenix612
10-12-2009, 08:58 PM
I am sorry I did not reference the latter part of your quote because I thought it would be obvious to anyone reading your post that you were in fact contradicting yourself. You said that the American thing to do would be to withdraw and protect only our own borders but then turned around and said that our army should directly protect America. Directly protecting America does not mean limiting our armed forces to our own borders and that is evidenced by the historical examples which I have referenced in my previous posts on the subject. The latter half of your post is not congruous with the first half.

Further you sound foolish when you speak of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq being to protect America's empire of military bases because we of course did not have any military bases in either of those two countries to protect prior to our invasions of those two countries. We in fact invaded both those countries because we viewed them as direct threats to American lives and property thus in both examples it was argued (you believe ineffectually) that both countries represented a direct threat to America. By your own argument then these invasions were in fact justified (except or course you do not believe that either country was a direct threat)
I'm not saying we're protecting our military bases, I'm taking a shot at the practice of having bases all over the world.

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 09:09 PM
I'm not saying we're protecting our military bases, I'm taking a shot at the practice of having bases all over the world.


Actually that is exactly what you said


Our army should DIRECTLY protect AMERICA, not America's empire of military bases strewn across the globe, but we should use our position as world leaders to influence global diplomacy.

(I included the entire quote to avoid the charge of misrepresenting what you said even though I consider the non bolded part of the quote to be irrelevant to the discussion we are here in engaged.)

Are you then saying that you misspoke or did not effectively articulate your thoughts?

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 09:17 PM
Anyone who deems themselves a scholar of American history would laugh at the notion that unprovoked invasion of foreign nations is anything more than a fluky outlier.

Once again you have brought into the discussion a new topic, that of unprovoked invasion. I do not believe that we have been speaking here of unprovoked invasion but rather deployment of forces beyond our borders to protect our interests. If you would like to discuss the provocations that lead to our involvement in WWI, Nicaragua, the Panamanian War for Independence, the occupation of Nicaragua, the Spanish American War, or the First Barbary War (or for that matter the second which I did not reference in my response to tayb), then we can have that discussion as well but I think that I have presented the case for foreign intervention in American History fairly adequately. Lets try to stay on point here.

the_phoenix612
10-12-2009, 09:17 PM
Actually that is exactly what you said



(I included the entire quote to avoid the charge of misrepresenting what you said even though I consider the non bolded part of the quote to be irrelevant to the discussion we are here in engaged.)

Are you then saying that you misspoke or did not effectively articulate your thoughts?
the second.

the_phoenix612
10-12-2009, 09:18 PM
Once again you have brought into the discussion a new topic, that of unprovoked invasion. I do not believe that we have been speaking here of unprovoked invasion but rather deployment of forces beyond our borders to protect our interests. If you would like to discuss the provocations that lead to our involvement in WWI, Nicaragua, the Panamanian War for Independence, the occupation of Nicaragua, the Spanish American War, or the First Barbary War (or for that matter the second which I did not reference in my response to tayb), then we can have that discussion as well but I think that I have presented the case for foreign intervention in American History fairly adequately. Lets try to stay on point here.
from the get go, I was talking about unprovoked invasion. Very few (myself NOT included) argue we should not have joined in WWII.

Dawg Fan
10-12-2009, 09:38 PM
Jeez phoenix, mong obliterated you. you should have quit while you were behind..ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

hey maybe you can find a chart or graph to show you actually won the argument.:notworthy

tayb
10-12-2009, 09:41 PM
Jeez phoenix, mong obliterated you. you should have quit while you were behind..ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

hey maybe you can find a chart or graph to show you actually won the argument.:notworthy

Phew. I was wondering when you were going to arrive to say ROFTLMAO and throw out the occasional :notworthy or :laugh while contributing nothing to the debate. Thanks for finally showing up.

Dawg Fan
10-12-2009, 09:50 PM
Phew. I was wondering when you were going to arrive to say ROFTLMAO and throw out the occasional :notworthy or :laugh while contributing nothing to the debate. Thanks for finally showing up.

the fact that you are happy just makes it all worthwhile and with this excellent response you prove that hypocrisy is not just a word but a creed for you to live by. Thanks

tayb
10-12-2009, 09:52 PM
the fact that you are happy just makes it all worthwhile and with this excellent response you prove that hypocrisy is not just a word but a creed for you to live by. Thanks

ROTFLMAO!!! You just OWNED tayb!!! :notworthy :notworthy

LOLOL

the_phoenix612
10-12-2009, 10:31 PM
the fact that you are happy just makes it all worthwhile and with this excellent response you prove that hypocrisy is not just a word but a creed for you to live by. Thanks
HAHAHAHAHA!

Tater salad for poster of the year!

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 10:39 PM
Can you tell me which country attacked the world trade towers? A country please.

tayb,

Lets just begin by saying that it is the World Trade CENTER or the Twin TOWERS but never in my memory have they been referred to as the World Trade Towers :D.

Now that that is out of the way to the question at hand. Much in the same way as it was not the Ottoman Empire that "declared" war on us by chopping down a flagpole outside of our embassy it was not the government of Afghanistan that declared war on us by attacking the World Trade Center. The Barbary Pirates were in fact not a government sponsored entity like an army or navy but were rather privateers that the governments (I.E. the Pasha of Tripoli or other such high government official of the Ottoman Empire) of the Barbary States gave safe harbor and material support to. Like wise the Al Qaeda organization was not an official branch or organ of the Taliban lead Afghani government but rather was an organization which was given safe haven and material support by the government of Afghanistan. As such the Taliban lead government of Afghanistan, much like the governor (or Pasha) of the Ottoman State of Tripoli, was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. If a government gives safe haven and material support to those who seek the destruction or harm of American lives, property, or interests then I believe that government has made clear its position as an enemy of the United States just as much as if it had attacked us with its own military forces. (Short answer to your question is Afghanistan)

the_phoenix612
10-12-2009, 10:42 PM
tayb,

Lets just begin by saying that it is the World Trade CENTER or the Twin TOWERS but never in my memory have they been referred to as the World Trade Towers :D.

Now that that is out of the way to the question at hand. Much in the same way as it was not the Ottoman Empire that "declared" war on us by chopping down a flagpole outside of our embassy it was not the government of Afghanistan that declared war on us by attacking the World Trade Center. The Barbary Pirates were in fact not a government sponsored entity like an army or navy but were rather privateers that the governments (I.E. the Pasha of Tripoli or other such high government official of the Ottoman Empire) of the Barbary States gave safe harbor and material support to. Like wise the Al Qaeda organization was not an official branch or organ of the Taliban lead Afghani government but rather was an organization which was given safe haven and material support by the government of Afghanistan. As such the Taliban lead government of Afghanistan, much like the governor (or Pasha) of the Ottoman State of Tripoli, was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. If a government gives safe haven and material to those who seek the destruction or harm of American lives, property, or interests then I believe that government has made clear its position as an enemy of the United States just as much as if it had attacked us with its own military forces. (Short answer to your question is Afghanistan)
stop trying to quickly gloss over the true functin of privateers. They were pirates in the direct employ of the government, much as private contractors are today. Your nice spin language is misleading and you know it.

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 11:12 PM
stop trying to quickly gloss over the true function fify of privateers. They were pirates in the direct employ of the government, much as private contractors are today. Your nice spin language is misleading and you know it.

No it is not misleading at all. The privateers were not members of the Ottoman army or navy, they wore no uniform. They were given license by the Pasha or other governing authority to cary out their acts of piracy but they were not government employees. (True that if one of these privateers were successful enough they could in fact seize power for themselves and become the government but this was not the case in the Barbary Wars) They were paid not by the Pasha but rather from the booty which they took of which a share would be given to the government. They were thus not paid by the government but were in fact a revenue stream for the government. I am not implicating that the analogy between Al Qaeda and the Barbary pirates is a perfect match but their is enough similarity to make a reasonable comparison. In both instances the governments gave sanctuary and material aid to a non government entity to do harm to another sovereign nation (namely the United States of America).

By the way I could take you a little more seriously if you learned how to spell function.:D

Mong Hu
10-12-2009, 11:35 PM
People will start agreeing with Obama when he becomes a Republican. He can have the same policies. Of course, then others will start disagreeing with him. I think he should run next time as a Republomat or a Demopublican. I detest the fact that he is big-endian. I also detest the fact that he is little-endian. However, I like it that he is big-endian or little-endian. That is because he is lilliputian. Now, I jump through the mirror and go away....

slcdragonfan,

Excellent post. I do enjoy children's literature. I can't help but feel that I must be too stupid to see all the vibrant colors and beautiful patterns or perhaps there is nothing there to see at all.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Emperors-New-Clothes.htm

DragonBand06
10-12-2009, 11:54 PM
Mong is on a freakin hot streak tonight. :D

GoOwls
10-13-2009, 01:18 AM
Jeez phoenix, mong obliterated you. you should have quit while you were behind..ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

hey maybe you can find a chart or graph to show you actually won the argument.:notworthy

Mong did indeed hammer those two and it doesn't matter if tayb likes your lack of involvement or not....you noticed the whipping....easy stuff to see.

My addition is to agree with Mong and confirm that in 1974-76, the history guy at my HS had just graduated from SMU a few years before and he had a masters in Military History, obtained from the professor at SMU who was considered the leading military historian teaching in the 60's in the south. In HS we learned about the military actions that Mong speaks of...certainly not on that level of depth, but we got the basics.

I'm just here to confirm that my teaching from HS confirms Mongs position.

Political ideaology confirms the other two's position, not facts.

Firebird
10-13-2009, 08:02 AM
Pied, if I had said that it would be a cold day in :Censor: before I would ever agree with the man again then I think you have an argument. As it stands I was clearly using this particular figure of speech to illustrate my surprise at finding myself in agreement with our President yet again. I was also using a bit of hyperbole in order to make my point. I have in fact agreed with our President on more than one or two occasions. I agreed with Mr. Obama when he first sent additional troops to Afghanistan and I agreed with Mr. Obama's speech about the importance of fatherhood and I agreed with much of what Mr. Obama spoke of in his address to our nations school children. Still the clear pattern over the course of this administration is that I do not agree with the President on many issues. So despite an occasional point on which we may be in agreement I am on the whole surprised when I agree with what the man is saying. There I have expressed my view in a more rational manner with out sarcasm or the language to which you have taken offense. I apologize for trying to make my point with a bit of humor but as Firebird has pointed out in another thread I believe there are many who fail to appreciate conservative humor.


You may know a bit of history, but do you know the word "oxymoron."

RedRage00
10-13-2009, 08:25 AM
Phew. I was wondering when you were going to arrive to say ROFTLMAO and throw out the occasional :notworthy or :laugh while contributing nothing to the debate. Thanks for finally showing up.

hahahaha

Mong Hu
10-13-2009, 10:40 AM
You may know a bit of history, but do you know the word "oxymoron."

Unfortunately I am just another ignorant intellectual.:D

RedRage00
10-13-2009, 10:50 AM
Mong did indeed hammer those two and it doesn't matter if tayb likes your lack of involvement or not....you noticed the whipping....easy stuff to see.

My addition is to agree with Mong and confirm that in 1974-76, the history guy at my HS had just graduated from SMU a few years before and he had a masters in Military History, obtained from the professor at SMU who was considered the leading military historian teaching in the 60's in the south. In HS we learned about the military actions that Mong speaks of...certainly not on that level of depth, but we got the basics.

I'm just here to confirm that my teaching from HS confirms Mongs position.

Political ideaology confirms the other two's position, not facts.

Mong Hu is a smart guy, but Tater Salad is always riding his @$$ (no pun intended).

I enjoy reading the back and forth between Mong, Firebird, and Phoenix. It's entertaining. It's like they're throwing pocket protectors at each other :D Why ruin that with my lame comments? :cool:

Oh, and I can't forget Pied!

Mong Hu
10-13-2009, 10:57 AM
Mong Hu is a smart guy, but Tater Salad is always riding his @$$ (no pun intended).

I enjoy reading the back and forth between Mong, Firebird, and Phoenix. It's entertaining. It's like they're throwing pocket protectors at each other :D Why ruin that with my lame comments? :cool:

Oh, and I can't forget Pied!

The value of pocket protectors to western society has long been overlooked. I personally would never risk loosing or damaging a pocket protector for the purpose of intellectual exchange and growth (poor trade off IMHO). If there are those who would participate in such a barbaric and uncivilized act then someone must stop the insanity or we will all surely be doomed. DOOOOOMED I tell you!!!!

GoOwls
10-13-2009, 11:40 AM
Mong Hu is a smart guy, but Tater Salad is always riding his @$$ (no pun intended).

I enjoy reading the back and forth between Mong, Firebird, and Phoenix. It's entertaining. It's like they're throwing pocket protectors at each other :D Why ruin that with my lame comments? :cool:

Oh, and I can't forget Pied!

Yes, throw pied in there too.

I enjoy those guys also....the convos are the best.....I don't nearly have the depth of knowledge to get in many of their debates, but I feel that sometimes I can add a bit of common sense to the debate....stuff learned form years of experience that they don't have yet....;)

But in general, it's just fun to read them....and take the occasional pot-shot....:D

chhspantherfan
10-13-2009, 01:53 PM
AP Newsbreak: Nobel jury defends Obama decision



By IAN MacDOUGALL and KARL RITTER, Associated Press Writers Ian Macdougall And Karl Ritter, Associated Press Writers 2 hrs 51 mins ago



OSLO Members of the Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are strongly defending their choice against a storm of criticism that the award was premature and a potential liability for the U.S. president.

Asked to comment on the uproar following Friday's announcement, four members of the five-seat panel told The Associated Press that they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism.

Three of them rejected the notion that Obama hadn't accomplished anything to deserve the award, while the fourth declined to answer that question. A fifth member didn't answer calls seeking comment.

"We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP on Tuesday. "He got the prize for what he has done."

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to I wouldn't say a safer world but a world with less tension," Jagland said by phone from the French city of Strasbourg, where he was attending meetings in his other role as secretary-general of the Council of Europe.


link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_obama;_ylt=AhwZTCkaJwvkexe8IPUwp.Rs .aF4;_ylu=X3oDMTJuODBtamRtBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDEz L2V1X25vYmVsX3BlYWNlX29iYW1hBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZW MDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2lucmFyZXB1YmxpYw--)

Dawg Fan
10-13-2009, 01:57 PM
Mong is on a freakin hot streak tonight. :D

be careful of agreeing with mong;) it pisses off the gay people LOL

DragonBand06
10-13-2009, 02:00 PM
be careful of agreeing with mong;) it pisses off the gay people LOLI've taken no stance, I was just saying he's really workin the boards lately! :D