The Man Who Got Screwed Out Of the Nobel Prize [Archive] - Debate Policy

red states rule

10-09-2009, 02:48 PM

I thought it would be good to talk about the guy who should have won the Nobel Prize.

How this guy did not win and Obama did is indeed a sick joke

Obama's Nobel: The Last Thing He Needs

snip

At this moment many Americans are longing for a president who is more bully, less pulpit. The president who leased his immense inaugural good will to the hungry appropriators writing the stimulus bill, who has not stopped negotiating health care reform except to say what is non-negotiable, whose solicitude for the wheelers and dealers who drove the financial system into a ditch leaves the rest of us wondering who has our back, has always shown great promise, said the right things, affirmed every time he opens his mouth that he understands the fears we face and the hopes we hold. But he presides over a capital whose day-to-day functioning has become part-travesty, part-tragedy, wasteful, blind, vain, petty, where even the best intentioned reformers measure their progress with teaspoons. There comes a time when a President needs to take a real risk - and putting his prestige on the line to win the Olympics for his home town does not remotely count.

Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress

Sometimes the words come first. Sometimes, it's better to let actions speak for themselves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500

red states rule

10-09-2009, 04:38 PM

No Obama drones stepping up to the plate and trying to explain how The Chosen One was a better selection then Greg Mortenson?

Silver

10-09-2009, 05:29 PM

No Obama drones stepping up to the plate and trying to explain how The Chosen One was a better selection then Greg Mortenson?

Now, now....give them a little time....Olbermann and Matthews have yet to come on tv, or Pelosi and Reid to give an interview to give the drones their talking points.....then they will reply in stereo....

I can only imagine, because its obvious Obama has done jackshit to deserve the award (by his own admission), the talking point will most likely be that only the racist bigots will demean the choice of the Nobel judges....
Yep....only the racist and bigots....in the world of the drones, (conservatives)

maineman

10-09-2009, 07:37 PM

Mr. P

10-09-2009, 08:23 PM

mortenson built 130 schools.

Obama has changed the dialog for peace worldwide.

Obama has gotten Russia to back strong sanctions against Iran.

Obama has singlehandedly stemmed the tide of muslim hatred for America.

The world now sees America as the guys in white hats again and they see us as a force for peace, for disarmament, for reversing climate change...

but mortenson built 130 schools.

the Nobel Committee obviously saw things differently than you do.

that is no big surprise.

Bambam hadn't done squat before he took office. He was nominated BEFORE he was even in office. So, obviously the Nobel Committee is blind to real accomplishments. A political tool? Hummm he is faking the end of a war...could this be aaaaa, just politics? An attempt by the Nobel Committee to dissuade him from military matters at hand by a peace prize winner?

sgtdmski

10-09-2009, 09:41 PM

mortenson built 130 schools.

Obama has changed the dialog for peace worldwide.

Obama has gotten Russia to back strong sanctions against Iran.

Obama has singlehandedly stemmed the tide of muslim hatred for America.

The world now sees America as the guys in white hats again and they see us as a force for peace, for disarmament, for reversing climate change...

but mortenson built 130 schools.

the Nobel Committee obviously saw things differently than you do.

that is no big surprise.

And he did all this within two weeks of being elected????? NOT!!!! Here is your problem the notification for the Peace Prize must have been submitted by the Third week of November of 2008. So tell me pleas, other than run for President, what did Obama do for world peace until that time????????

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice try!!!!!But your statements do not support the facts, which means your so-called facts are nothing but lies.

dmk

Noir

10-09-2009, 09:50 PM

maineman

10-09-2009, 10:15 PM

And he did all this within two weeks of being elected????? NOT!!!! Here is your problem the notification for the Peace Prize must have been submitted by the Third week of November of 2008. So tell me pleas, other than run for President, what did Obama do for world peace until that time????????

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice try!!!!!But your statements do not support the facts, which means your so-called facts are nothing but lies.

dmk

the fact that someone NOMINATED him before February 1st does not preclude the Prize Committee from considering his achievements AFTER February 1st when making their decisions. Get a clue.

You need to get a little bit smarter on the topic at hand before jumping into the discussion sarge.

maineman

10-09-2009, 10:18 PM

Dude its was clear he hasn't earned it yet,
Its not Obamas fault he has won it, ergo there is no point in defending him winning it,
all you are doing is defending the choices of some random judging committee

I don't think the Nobel Prize Committee is some "random judging committee".

sorry

I am not defending anything other than that committee's right to make the decision that they made. It was as big a surprise to me as it was to the President. But from the reaction of many world leaders, unlike the partisan hack republicans on THIS site, THEY certainly think that the choice is inspired.

Noir

10-09-2009, 10:29 PM

I don't think the Nobel Prize Committee is some "random judging committee".

sorry

I am not defending anything other than that committee's right to make the decision that they made. It was as big a surprise to me as it was to the President. But from the reaction of many world leaders, unlike the partisan hack republicans on THIS site, THEY certainly think that the choice is inspired.

Well i, and my friends which i have been talking to IRL are certainly not 'partisan hack republicans' and i have yet to find anyone other than those on liberal hack websites who see this as a good decision,

maineman

10-09-2009, 10:43 PM

Well i, and my friends which i have been talking to IRL are certainly not 'partisan hack republicans' and i have yet to find anyone other than those on liberal hack websites who see this as a good decision,
Gorbachev does... Karzai does... Nelson Mandela does... Kofi Annan does...Desmond Tutu does.... Marrti Ahtisaari, last year's winner does....ElBaradai does....

it's clear you haven't looked too far beyond you and your friends.

not exactly a representative sample of the great minds of the day

Noir

10-09-2009, 11:07 PM

Gorbachev does... Karzai does... Nelson Mandela does... Kofi Annan does...Desmond Tutu does.... Marrti Ahtisaari, last year's winner does....ElBaradai does....

it's clear you haven't looked too far beyond you and your friends.

not exactly a representative sample of the great minds of the day

Yeah, i mean feth me, my Politics seminars at university (with a total of about 60 students) are in no way representative.
Not including my general friends and chats on non political websites, and on one of which (GaiaOnline) there was a massive level of blowback rage at him gettin the award (and this is mainly coming from 'mindless self indulgent' teenagers who otherwise show no care for politics) the level of blowback on gaia makes me think that this has really hit a raw nerve,

But hey, who am i to suggest anything, i mean if ElBaradai says i'm wrong then i'm worng.

maineman

10-09-2009, 11:11 PM

Yeah, i mean feth me, my Politics seminars at university (with a total of about 60 students) are in no way representative.
Not including my general friends and chats on non political websites, and on one of which (GaiaOnline) there was a massive level of blowback rage at him gettin the award (and this is mainly coming from 'mindless self indulgent' teenagers who otherwise show no care for politics) the level of blowback on gaia makes me think that this has really hit a raw nerve,

But hey, who am i to suggest anything, i mean if ElBaradai says i'm wrong then i'm worng.

not at all...if Gorbachev and Annan and Mandela et. al. have a different opinion from you, all that proves is that your opinion is not as universally held as you might think it is.

Mr. P

10-09-2009, 11:16 PM

not at all...if Gorbachev and Annan and Mandela et. al. have a different opinion from you, all that proves is that your opinion is not as universally held as you might think it is.

:laugh2: And these guys trump the billions in the world that see this as BULLSHIT? BULLSHIT! Universally held my ass.

Noir

10-09-2009, 11:17 PM

not at all...if Gorbachev and Annan and Mandela et. al. have a different opinion from you, all that proves is that your opinion is not as universally held as you might think it is.

hmmm....so...who's side do i take, that of the 'idiot' masses, or that of the 'learned' few. I'll go with the masses on this one bro, i'm sure there are plenty who think he does deserve it, but it goes against my own reasoning to believe that he does.

maineman

10-09-2009, 11:18 PM

:laugh2: And these guys trump the billions in the world that see this as BULLSHIT? BULLSHIT!

got a link that supports that "billions" bullshit?

I doubt it...CUZ IT'S BULLSHIT!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::
oh.... and lest I forget:

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::

Mr. P

10-09-2009, 11:21 PM

got a link that supports that "billions" bullshit?

I doubt it...CUZ IT'S BULLSHIT!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::
oh.... and lest I forget:

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::

The same link as your "et. al." dumb ass.

maineman

10-09-2009, 11:22 PM

The same link as your "et. al." dumb ass.
I listed others in a previous post... if you have BILLIONS of names of people around the world who think this award is a bad idea...

start posting them, asshole.

I'll check back in a decade and see how far you've gotten...

SassyLady

10-09-2009, 11:24 PM

When Jimmy Carter won I was surprised and thought it must be a fluke. Then, when Al Gore won I knew this "symbol/prize" meant nothing to anyone but the committee. Now, with this announcement, I am positive this "great honor" no longer has any merit whatsoever.

The reason Mr. Mortenson didn't get it is because he doesn't have a gifted speech writer like Obama. How that man continues to get ahead based on what he says and not what he does is beyond belief.

Mr. P

10-09-2009, 11:26 PM

I listed others in a previous post... if you have BILLIONS of names of people around the world who think this award is a bad idea...

start posting them, asshole.

I'll check back in a decade and see how far you've gotten...

Take a poll ..have fun..fact is the world has been shocked and so was Bambam..now that has to say something to a thick headed MORON like you, no?

Noir

10-09-2009, 11:27 PM

Take a poll ..have fun..fact is the world has been shocked and so was Bambam..now that has to say something to a thick headed MORON like you, no?

I'm currently running a wee poll on gaia just ta see, so far 7-1 against obama....

maineman

10-09-2009, 11:28 PM

Take a poll ..have fun..fact is the world has been shocked and so was Bambam..now that has to say something to a thick headed MORON like you, no?

so when you said "billions", you were pulling it out of your ass?

thanks for admitting that.

And shock does not equate to disapproval.

suck on that.

moron

maineman

10-09-2009, 11:29 PM

I'm currently running a wee poll on gaia just ta see, so far 7-1 against obama....

gaia.... versus former nobel peace prize winners...

now that's a good comparison.

Mr. P

10-09-2009, 11:30 PM

I'm currently running a wee poll on gaia just ta see, so far 7-1 against obama....

Post the results..please. MM needs some educating.

Noir

10-09-2009, 11:31 PM

gaia.... versus former nobel peace prize winners...

now that's a good comparison.

Maybe thats how you see it, i see it as people against people

maineman

10-09-2009, 11:31 PM

Post the results..please. MM needs some educating.

educating from morons like you?

I need a root canal more.

you're a partisan hack who can't use the language beyond the level of a child.

you bore me

maineman

10-09-2009, 11:32 PM

Maybe thats how you see it, i see it as people against people

ok... then I guess your gaia folks are just as knowledgeable about world peace as former nobel peace prize winners.

who knew?

Mr. P

10-09-2009, 11:33 PM

educating from morons like you?

I need a root canal more.

you're a partisan hack who can't use the language beyond the level of a child.

you bore me

:laugh2: No I rule you..like most posters here..get used to it. :laugh2:

SassyLady

10-09-2009, 11:35 PM

Thorbjørn Jagland, the committee chairman, made clear that this year’s prize fell in that category. “If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do,” he said. “It could be too late to respond three years from now.”

Because three years from now Obama will be impeached.

Noir

10-09-2009, 11:35 PM

ok... then I guess your gaia folks are just as knowledgeable about world peace as former nobel peace prize winners.

who knew?

I guess they are just as knowledgeable as you....

Srsly saying 'someone better that you knows the answer' is just plain daft.

Update - Currently 23-4 against obama in poll.

maineman

10-09-2009, 11:45 PM

I guess they are just as knowledgeable as you....

Srsly saying 'someone better that you knows the answer' is just plain daft.

Update - Currently 23-4 against obama in poll.

if the subject were the brain surgery you needed, would you consider the opinions of your gaia buddies just as valuable as those of a panel of neurosurgeons?

never mind.

I can well imagine that you would.

good luck!

Noir

10-09-2009, 11:49 PM

if the subject were the brain surgery you needed, would you consider the opinions of your gaia buddies just as valuable as those of a panel of neurosurgeons?

never mind.

I can well imagine that you would.

good luck!

Inwhich case surly *only* those who work in economics can comment on economic matters, ect ect,
Lame arguement is lame,

Update poll - 31 to 5 against B.O.

Noir

10-10-2009, 12:22 AM

Well i'm going to bed, but just before i do, the lastest poll results, 62-19 against obama

DragonStryk72

10-10-2009, 01:22 AM

mortenson built 130 schools.

Obama has changed the dialog for peace worldwide.

Obama has gotten Russia to back strong sanctions against Iran.

Obama has singlehandedly stemmed the tide of muslim hatred for America.

Not before the first two weeks, he didn't. That's the deadline, this guy did that, at personal jeopardy to his, while Obama talked a bunch, at no risk.

Not only that, but he's just continuing the Bush program on Iran. He has not single-handedly done a damned thing, and certainly not in the first two weeks in office.

SassyLady

10-10-2009, 01:35 AM

mortenson built 130 schools.

Obama has changed the dialog for peace worldwide.

So we can bring all the troops home worldwide?

Obama has gotten Russia to back strong sanctions against Iran.

So, has this slowed Iran down at all?

Obama has singlehandedly stemmed the tide of muslim hatred for America.

Really?! So we no longer have to worry about Al Queda?

The world now sees America as the guys in white hats again and they see us as a force for peace, for disarmament, for reversing climate change...

Gosh, MM, when did this happen? Just because he stands in front of a podium with a teleprompter, reguritating someone else's words, does not mean he has actually done a damn thing?

but mortenson built 130 schools.

And how many has Obama built? Nada!!!

the Nobel Committee obviously saw things differently than you do.

Thank God!!! I would never want to be in the same group that sees things from a progressive liberal, socialist point of view giving out symbolic awards to blowhards.

MM - he has done nothing at this point but give speeches about what he thinks should be done............when he actually follows through on any thing, then he might deserve to be looked at. Until then, he's a do-nothing president who is full of himself.

red states rule

10-10-2009, 05:13 AM

I guess you have to look at this thru the eyes of a liberal

Greg is the son of a missionary so he is nothing more then a religious right nutcase

Being a religious nut he does not respect the customs of the people like stoning women in public

So it was an easy call not give the award to this guy

Obama had to have the award to boost his approval numbers and he can use the $1 million prize more then some guy pushing his religion on other people. Obama can use it to take anmother vacation, or give the money to ACORN to help his reelection chances

glockmail

10-10-2009, 08:15 AM

....
Obama has singlehandedly stemmed the tide of muslim hatred for America.
... Prove it.

red states rule

10-10-2009, 09:17 AM

Prove it.

I'll wait

sgtdmski

10-10-2009, 09:40 AM

the fact that someone NOMINATED him before February 1st does not preclude the Prize Committee from considering his achievements AFTER February 1st when making their decisions. Get a clue.

You need to get a little bit smarter on the topic at hand before jumping into the discussion sarge.

Okay, again what did he do prior to his nomination to promote peace??????? Even the Nobel Committee has admitted it award the prize based upon his rhetoric in speeches given during his campaign. Hmmm, so if that is the case, should the award not go to the speech writers?????

So you have no facts to justify a nomination, let alone winning the prize, and I am the one that needs to get smarter. No, admit the truth, can you??? This is and was nothing more than a political prize awarded by a group of Norwegians who hated the Bush administration and are rewarding Obama because he is not Bush.

There are some that might argue that we should remain silent with our criticism because the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize bring honors to the country. I disagree, a meaningless prize brings no honor.

dmk

red states rule

10-10-2009, 09:43 AM

Okay, again what did he do prior to his nomination to promote peace??????? Even the Nobel Committee has admitted it award the prize based upon his rhetoric in speeches given during his campaign. Hmmm, so if that is the case, should the award not go to the speech writers?????

So you have no facts to justify a nomination, let alone winning the prize, and I am the one that needs to get smarter. No, admit the truth, can you??? This is and was nothing more than a political prize awarded by a group of Norwegians who hated the Bush administration and are rewarding Obama because he is not Bush.

There are some that might argue that we should remain silent with our criticism because the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize bring honors to the country. I disagree, a meaningless prize brings no honor.

dmk

I am still waiting for Virgil - aka MM to tell us why Obama is a better selection then this man. A man who has a lifetime of ACCOMPHISHMENTS

Which is what I thought the Nobel Prize was all about

Lawmakers nominate Mortenson for Nobel

published on Wednesday, January 7, 2009 10:40 PM MST

By KARIN RONNOW Chronicle Staff Writer

A bipartisan group of six members of the U.S. Congress have nominated humanitarian Greg Mortenson of Bozeman for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Mortenson, 51, founder of the Central Asia Institute and co-author of the bestselling book “Three Cups of Tea,” has built nearly 80 schools, especially for girls, in remote areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past 15 years.

“Mr. Mortenson's life work is remarkable,” Rep. Mary Bono, R-Calif., wrote in a nomination letter to the Nobel Committee in Norway. “He has overcome great adversity, escaping brutality and death, to continue his commitment to providing educational opportunities to children” and “continues to impress the global community with his unwavering dedication.”

The letter asking the committee to give the nomination its “full consideration” was signed by Bono, Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Reps. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., Connie Mack, R-Fla., and Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio.

Mortenson was caught off guard when Rehberg’s office issued a press release Wednesday announcing that the nomination had been submitted.

He said he “stunned” and “humbled” and considered it “a great honor,” but that the announcement put him in an awkward position.

“I thought nominations were supposed to be secret,” he said in an interview at his Bozeman home.

He then opened the Nobel Prize Web site on his computer and read aloud, “Two hundred to 300 names are submitted as nominees annually. And the names of the nominees are not revealed until 50 years later.”

But this time, word was out. Reporters from around the country were already trying to reach him for comment about the nomination.

And he’s already swamped with work.

“I’ve got my sleeves rolled up,” he said. “There’s a lot of work to be done. I’m quite busy now, starting new projects and fundraising n I’m traveling to 100 cities over the next five months. My work will never be finished until every child has the right and privilege to go to school. Eight-nine million females on the planet are denied access to education because of slavery, poverty, religious extremism, gender discrimination and corrupt governments. Maybe (this prize would be appropriate) in about 20 to 30 more years.”

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2009/01/08/news/10nobel.txt

sgtdmski

10-10-2009, 09:46 AM

I don't think the Nobel Prize Committee is some "random judging committee".

sorry

I am not defending anything other than that committee's right to make the decision that they made. It was as big a surprise to me as it was to the President. But from the reaction of many world leaders, unlike the partisan hack republicans on THIS site, THEY certainly think that the choice is inspired.

The committee is appointed by the Norwegians legislature. The majority of the members (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/members/) are politicians themselves or work for political organization. So they pretty much are nothing more or less than a random judging committee no different from the judges of the Miss America contest.

dmk

namvet

10-10-2009, 09:51 AM

0ygIYxmvfJo

red states rule

10-10-2009, 09:54 AM

Obama meets all the qualifications to win the Nobel Prize

He is a black liberal Democrat

He is not Pres Bush

Enough said

I do bet Hillary is pissed off. Once again she is ignored and Obama gets all the glory for doing NOTHING

Trigg

10-10-2009, 10:32 AM

red states rule

10-10-2009, 10:39 AM

Mainman can't see beyond partisan politics.

I happen to agree with what was said on hardball last night. This is an attempt by the nobel committe to push obama to keep his promises that he made while campaining.

As Chris Matthews said at the end, I'd like to see what the committe says after obama sends 40,000 new troops to the war.

Bambam can sit in his chair all day and "talk" about what he wants to do with world peace. The person who should have won is someone who got up out of that chair and DID SOMETHING.

It gets back to what I have been saying for years Trigg. With liberals, and those hard core libs like MM, actual results of liberalsim do not matter. Only the good intentions

When a liberal programs fails, or the promsiies of liberals fall short - what do you hear from the left. You never hear they were worng. No, you hear how they ment well and someone else wa to blame

The same with Obama. So what if he has accomplished NOTHING. His policies mean well, and Obama has good intentions

glockmail

10-10-2009, 10:47 AM

I'll waitCrickets chirping.

red states rule

10-10-2009, 11:15 AM

Crickets chirping.

Well maybe MM does not count the THREE terror plots broken up in the US within the last month, or the hotel bombings that were done shortly after he was elected

After all, MM can always pass the blame to Obama much like Obama does the economy and the wars

MM is always ready to heap praise on Obama for doing nothing, but will never hold him (or any Dem) accountable for what they actually do and/or say

Mr. P

10-10-2009, 01:51 PM

Crickets chirping.

MM farms crickets, he has an endless supply.

NightTrain

10-10-2009, 02:02 PM

Obama has singlehandedly stemmed the tide of muslim hatred for America.

This has to be the most profoundly stupid statement I've ever seen on the internet. Unreal!

maineman

10-10-2009, 02:32 PM

trobinett

10-10-2009, 02:40 PM

can you provide a link to the committee saying that they gave him the award based upon campaign speeches given in 2008 prior to his election?

Well, to be fair, I couldn't fine any, course it might be a liberal conspiracy.:slap::salute:

Trigg

10-10-2009, 05:58 PM

can you provide a link to the committee saying that they gave him the award based upon campaign speeches given in 2008 prior to his election?

Your kidding right????

The entire explination is based on the ideals he has put through. They based their decision on what he did the previous year. He says this over and over and over again. At about minute 3 he again says what they based their decision on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooqkvd8JPfU&feature=channel

NightTrain

10-10-2009, 06:17 PM

Your kidding right????

The entire explination is based on the ideals he has put through. They based their decision on what he did the previous year. He says this over and over and over again. At about minute 3 he again says what they based their decision on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooqkvd8JPfU&feature=channel

Interesting. He says multiple times that this award was based on the "preceeding year". Yep, Obama was a real international mover and shaker in 2008! :laugh2:

maineman

10-10-2009, 07:23 PM

Your kidding right????

The entire explination is based on the ideals he has put through. They based their decision on what he did the previous year. He says this over and over and over again. At about minute 3 he again says what they based their decision on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooqkvd8JPfU&feature=channel

not one word....not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY F**KING word in that interview even vaguely suggests that this prize was given for what Obama said as a candidate.

It is given in October of 2009... and the preceding year, clearly contains nine months of Obama's words and deeds as PRESIDENT, not as a 20087 candidate.

NightTrain

10-10-2009, 07:38 PM

not one word....not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY F**KING word in that interview even vaguely suggests that this prize was given for what Obama said as a candidate.

It is given in October of 2009... and the preceding year, clearly contains nine months of Obama's words and deeds as PRESIDENT, not as a 20087 candidate.

That's not what he said, Slick. Watch it again.

Given that we are now in 2009, his own words "in the preceeding year" would clearly mean 2008.

Otherwise, he would have said "this year".

maineman

10-10-2009, 07:39 PM

That's not what he said, Slick. Watch it again.

Given that we are now in 2009, his own words "in the preceeding year" would clearly mean 2008.

Otherwise, he would have said "this year".

in the preceding year would mean in the preceding 365 days. moron

NightTrain

10-10-2009, 11:07 PM

in the preceding year would mean in the preceding 365 days. moron

Aren't you a polite little fellow.

Here's a news flash for you with the definition of "Preceding Year".

Business Definition for: Preceding Year :

The year before the accounting year in question

http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/preceding+year.html

Or, I suppose you can start your own website and make up definitions as you go to be more official about your whacked statements.

Speaking of whacked statements, I'm still in awe of your little gem of :

Obama has singlehandedly stemmed the tide of muslim hatred for America.

Care to elaborate?

DragonStryk72

10-11-2009, 02:38 AM

not one word....not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY F**KING word in that interview even vaguely suggests that this prize was given for what Obama said as a candidate.

It is given in October of 2009... and the preceding year, clearly contains nine months of Obama's words and deeds as PRESIDENT, not as a 20087 candidate.

But the nominations closed out at the end of January, so, again, Maine, what did he do from January 20th to January 31st to promote peace?

red states rule

10-11-2009, 05:33 AM

But the nominations closed out at the end of January, so, again, Maine, what did he do from January 20th to January 31st to promote peace?

He promised "hope and change" :rolleyes:

maineman

10-11-2009, 06:49 AM

But the nominations closed out at the end of January, so, again, Maine, what did he do from January 20th to January 31st to promote peace?

so AGAIN, you'll have to ask the person that nominated him. In any case, that is irrelevant. What he did in the preceding 365 days prior to his being named the award winner is what the committee could look at.

red states rule

10-11-2009, 06:51 AM

so AGAIN, you'll have to ask the person that nominated him. In any case, that is irrelevant. What he did in the preceding 365 days prior to his being named the award winner is what the committee could look at.

TRANSLATION - Hell if I know. He won and that is all I care about. Another win for the Democrat party and I will take it no matter how we got it

maineman

10-11-2009, 06:54 AM

Aren't you a polite little fellow.

Here's a news flash for you with the definition of "Preceding Year".

http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/preceding+year.html

Or, I suppose you can start your own website and make up definitions as you go to be more official about your whacked statements.

Speaking of whacked statements, I'm still in awe of your little gem of :

Care to elaborate?

accounting year????? Do you think that the Nobel Prize Committee follows GAAP?:laugh2:

regarding the elaboration, I already have on several occasions.

red states rule

10-11-2009, 06:56 AM

accounting year????? Do you think that the Nobel Prize Committee follows GAAP?:laugh2:

regarding the elaboration, I already have on several occasions.

TRANSLATION - Do not bother me with the actual rules by which the Nobel Prize was to be awarded under. My guy won and that is all that matters. Stop being a bunch of damn racists and celebrate the new dawn that is sweeping across the world

The dawn of Obama!

NightTrain

10-11-2009, 07:11 AM

accounting year????? Do you think that the Nobel Prize Committee follows GAAP?:laugh2:

I see. So, you Libs have a secret code for "preceding year" that the rest of the world is unaware of. When does the Norwegian Socialist calendar year end? Do you get bonus Commie Points for making announcements on Mayday?

Since you don't like the definition I provided of "Preceding Year", perhaps you'd enlighten me with a link to clarify.

regarding the elaboration, I already have on several occasions.

I'm afraid you've scuttled away from directly addressing that bold statement that you made, like you are prone to do, Virgil.

I'd love to know how Obama has single handedly stemmed the tide of Muslim hatred toward the USA!

maineman

10-11-2009, 07:25 AM

I see. So, you Libs have a secret code for "preceding year" that the rest of the world is unaware of. When does the Norwegian Socialist calendar year end? Do you get bonus Commie Points for making announcements on Mayday?

Since you don't like the definition I provided of "Preceding Year", perhaps you'd enlighten me with a link to clarify.

I'm afraid you've scuttled away from directly addressing that bold statement that you made, like you are prone to do, Virgil.

I'd love to know how Obama has single handedly stemmed the tide of Muslim hatred toward the USA!

a year.... three hundred sixty-five days.

preceding... gone before

the preceding year is the preceding 365 days.... if, in June, I were to say that the preceding year in the pulpit had been gratifying... it would certainly not refer to the previous CALENDAR year, but to the year ending at the moment I made the statement. CLEARLY....The Nobel Prize Committee considered the events that had taken place in the 365 days preceding their announcement.... to continue to make a big deal about this February 1st date is silly.

not all that tough to understand, I would think... and no... I did explain my statement on several different occasions.

maineman

10-11-2009, 07:29 AM

TRANSLATION - Do not bother me with the actual rules by which the Nobel Prize was to be awarded under. My guy won and that is all that matters. Stop being a bunch of damn racists and celebrate the new dawn that is sweeping across the world

The dawn of Obama!

no rules were broken at all. Nowhere does it say that the prize committee must only look at accomplishments that happen prior to 1 february.

another lie from the moron hack.

red states rule

10-11-2009, 07:29 AM

red states rule

10-11-2009, 07:31 AM

no rules were broken at all. Nowhere does it say that the prize committee must only look at accomplishments that happen prior to 1 february.

another lie from the moron hack.

TRANSLATION - I do not care about the fact the nomination period closed on Feb 1, 2009. The fact is my guy won and who the hell cares about silly rules and guidelines

A win for the Democrat party is my only concern

NightTrain

10-11-2009, 07:42 AM

Trigg

10-11-2009, 08:11 AM

a year.... three hundred sixty-five days.

preceding... gone before

the preceding year is the preceding 365 days.... if, in June, I were to say that the preceding year in the pulpit had been gratifying... it would certainly not refer to the previous CALENDAR year, but to the year ending at the moment I made the statement. CLEARLY....The Nobel Prize Committee considered the events that had taken place in the 365 days preceding their announcement.... to continue to make a big deal about this February 1st date is silly.

not all that tough to understand, I would think... and no... I did explain my statement on several different occasions.

At your pulpit.....well at you pulpit of disgusting swear words....you probably would. Anyone else would say, so far this year has been gratifying, when discussing the same year they are in.

Your running in circles and you can't even admit your wrong on something as simple as this. It's times like this I just shake my head and wonder why anyone would take you seriously when you DEMAND they admit they're wrong.

The man says ON VIDEO, they based their decision ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR. NOT THIS YEAR 2009. No one but you, in your pink and sparkly world, considers PREVIOUS YEAR TO MEAN EARLIER THIS YEAR.

The man interviewing states that bambam took office 2 weeks before the deadline. IT is at that point that the man says the Nobel committee considered the PREVIOUS year in their decision.

red states rule

10-11-2009, 08:39 AM

At your pulpit.....well at you pulpit of disgusting swear words....you probably would. Anyone else would say, so far this year has been gratifying, when discussing the same year they are in.

Your running in circles and you can't even admit your wrong on something as simple as this. It's times like this I just shake my head and wonder why anyone would take you seriously when you DEMAND they admit they're wrong.

The man says ON VIDEO, they based their decision ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR. NOT THIS YEAR 2009. No one but you, in your pink and sparkly world, considers PREVIOUS YEAR TO MEAN EARLIER THIS YEAR.

The man interviewing states that bambam took office 2 weeks before the deadline. IT is at that point that the man says the Nobel committee considered the PREVIOUS year in their decision.

What Virgil will not admit is that Obama won the Nobel Prize for trashing America, destroying the US economy, and doing all he can do to lose the war in Afghanistan

That pretty well sums up his actions as candidate Obama and as President Obama

maineman

10-11-2009, 08:52 AM

At your pulpit.....well at you pulpit of disgusting swear words....you probably would. Anyone else would say, so far this year has been gratifying, when discussing the same year they are in.

Your running in circles and you can't even admit your wrong on something as simple as this. It's times like this I just shake my head and wonder why anyone would take you seriously when you DEMAND they admit they're wrong.

The man says ON VIDEO, they based their decision ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR. NOT THIS YEAR 2009. No one but you, in your pink and sparkly world, considers PREVIOUS YEAR TO MEAN EARLIER THIS YEAR.

The man interviewing states that bambam took office 2 weeks before the deadline. IT is at that point that the man says the Nobel committee considered the PREVIOUS year in their decision.

we have a difference of opinion, I guess. In June of this past year, I said exactly that from the pulpit and I was referring to the fact that I had been in the pulpit for one year as of June. It is clear to me from reading the Nobel Prize Committee's report that they did NOT base their decision on what Obama had done in 2008, but rather what he had done in office. If you chose to think that the Nobel Prize Committee gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize based upon campaign speeches he made before he became president, I guess that provides further fuel for your righteous indignation, but I doubt that anyone from the committee would support such an interpretation.

NightTrain

10-11-2009, 08:56 AM

we have a difference of opinion, I guess. In June of this past year, I said exactly that from the pulpit and I was referring to the fact that I had been in the pulpit for one year as of June. It is clear to me from reading the Nobel Prize Committee's report that they did NOT base their decision on what Obama had done in 2008, but rather what he had done in office. If you chose to think that the Nobel Prize Committee gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize based upon campaign speeches he made before he became president, I guess that provides further fuel for your righteous indignation, but I doubt that anyone from the committee would support such an interpretation.

Perhaps you'd better watch the video link provided and after doing so, correct yourself. It's glaringly clear as to what time frame is referenced.

namvet

10-11-2009, 08:59 AM

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7Ba9f9d5c5-1d36-4a75-a49a-254b15ec389e%7D.gif

red states rule

10-11-2009, 09:04 AM

and this from the US military

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/156074.jpg

namvet

10-11-2009, 09:15 AM

and this from the US military

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/156074.jpg

LBJ had his Vietnam and this coon's gonna have his. I say bring em all home.

red states rule

10-11-2009, 09:17 AM

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/156090.JPG

Binky

10-11-2009, 10:15 AM

That's hilarious, Red....:laugh2::laugh2:

red states rule

10-11-2009, 10:15 AM

That's hilarious, Red....:laugh2::laugh2:

It is also very true Binky

maineman

10-11-2009, 11:12 AM

Perhaps you'd better watch the video link provided and after doing so, correct yourself. It's glaringly clear as to what time frame is referenced.

that is not true. I watched the entire video link and, as I said, we have a difference of opinion.

red states rule

10-11-2009, 11:13 AM

that is not true. I watched the entire video link and, as I said, we have a difference of opinion.

So it is a differecne of opinion when you lie, and he tells the truth?
Welcome to Virgilville where up is down and truth be damned

sgtdmski

10-11-2009, 02:16 PM

can you provide a link to the committee saying that they gave him the award based upon campaign speeches given in 2008 prior to his election?

Here is the press release (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html) from the committee.

It actually states:

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future.

I mean come on, captured attention and give hope!!!!!! Hell he promised hope and change here and well, we've had no change and little hope except for more taxes.

dmk

maineman

10-11-2009, 03:08 PM

Here is the press release (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html) from the committee.

It actually states:

I mean come on, captured attention and give hope!!!!!! Hell he promised hope and change here and well, we've had no change and little hope except for more taxes.

dmk

and he couldn't have captured attention and given hope between february 1st and the day they decided? NOTHING they said indicates that they made their decision based upon stuff he did or said prior to 2/1/09.

Like I said, sarge.... you got nothin' but your opinion.

Mr. P

10-11-2009, 03:16 PM

and he couldn't have captured attention and given hope between february 1st and the day they decided? NOTHING they said indicates that they made their decision based upon stuff he did or said prior to 2/1/09.

Like I said, sarge.... you got nothin' but your opinion.

So what has he done since 2/1 cept triple the deficit?

SassyLady

10-11-2009, 03:29 PM

Even time magazine is questioning the award:

Obama's Nobel: The Last Thing He Needs
By Nancy Gibbs Friday, Oct. 09, 2009

The last thing Barack Obama needed at this moment in his presidency and our politics is a prize for a promise.

Rest of article:

http://http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1929395,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1929395,00.html)

Kathianne

10-11-2009, 03:39 PM

So what has he done since 2/1 cept triple the deficit?

Never mind, the 'committee' says 2/1 was the deadline, MFM is making up his own possibilities, that of course have as much weight as his being a truthful person. The 'committee' screwed up, that much is obvious, world wide, with the mega gravitas exception of MFM.

maineman

10-11-2009, 06:42 PM

Never mind, the 'committee' says 2/1 was the deadline, MFM is making up his own possibilities, that of course have as much weight as his being a truthful person. The 'committee' screwed up, that much is obvious, world wide, with the mega gravitas exception of MFM.

deadline for the receipt of nomininations, only. that same deadline did NOT apply to accomplishments by the nominees that might be considered by the committee. sorry.

SassyLady

10-11-2009, 07:19 PM

deadline for the receipt of nomininations, only. that same deadline did NOT apply to accomplishments by the nominees that might be considered by the committee. sorry.

So MM...........what you are saying is that the deadline to submit a name does not necessarily mean that the criteria for the application had to have already happened prior to the submission.

Are you stating that anyone can have their name submitted prior to the deadline, and then the committee will "watch" them for the next six-eight months to see if they live up to the nomination?

I don't believe this to be the case, but I could be wrong.

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: The Nobel Peace Prize is an international prize which is awarded annually by the Norwegian Nobel Committee according to guidelines laid down in Alfred Nobel's will. The Peace Prize is one of five prizes that have been awarded annually since 1901 under the auspices of the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm for outstanding contributions in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace. Starting in 1969, a Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel has also been awarded.

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: Whereas the other prizes are awarded by specialist committees based in Sweden, the Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian Storting. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to go to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". The prize includes a medal, a personal diploma, and a large sum of prize money (currently 10 million Swedish crowns).

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: The Nobel Peace Prize has been called "the world's most prestigious prize". With the award to Al Gore and the IPCC in 2007, a total of 95 individuals and 23 organizations have been awarded the Peace Prize. The Prize is awarded at a ceremony in the Oslo City Hall on December 10, the date on which Alfred Nobel died.

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: 1) The peace movement (leaders of the International Peace Bureau and the International Arbitration League); (2) Humanitarian work (Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, the Red Cross, the UNHCR); (3) International Organisations (UN agencies such as the ILO); (4)Disarmament (Alva Myrdal and Alfonso Garcia Robles, Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences); (5) Statesmen (The largest group, including: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Willy Brandt, Henry Kissinger, Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin , Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela and Willem de Klerk, John Hume and David Trimble); (6)Human Rights (Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King, Andrei Sakharov, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the Dalai Lama).

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: During the war the Nobel Peace prize was not given. Actually the years 1939-1943 there was no recipient. The year 1944 saw the International Committee of the Red Cross accept the prize. In the year preceding the war 1938 the prize went to Nansen International Office for Refugees, an organization authorized by the League of Nations in 1930.

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: Extract from Alfred Nobel's Will:

“The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:
The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my expressed wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.”

By: JamesBurgess

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Mr. P

10-11-2009, 09:36 PM

deadline for the receipt of nomininations, only. that same deadline did NOT apply to accomplishments by the nominees that might be considered by the committee. sorry.

So what has he done since 2/1 cept triple the deficit?

I'll wait.

maineman

10-12-2009, 06:15 AM

So MM...........what you are saying is that the deadline to submit a name does not necessarily mean that the criteria for the application had to have already happened prior to the submission.

Are you stating that anyone can have their name submitted prior to the deadline, and then the committee will "watch" them for the next six-eight months to see if they live up to the nomination?

I don't believe this to be the case, but I could be wrong.

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: The Nobel Peace Prize is an international prize which is awarded annually by the Norwegian Nobel Committee according to guidelines laid down in Alfred Nobel's will. The Peace Prize is one of five prizes that have been awarded annually since 1901 under the auspices of the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm for outstanding contributions in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace. Starting in 1969, a Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel has also been awarded.

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: Whereas the other prizes are awarded by specialist committees based in Sweden, the Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian Storting. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to go to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". The prize includes a medal, a personal diploma, and a large sum of prize money (currently 10 million Swedish crowns).

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: The Nobel Peace Prize has been called "the world's most prestigious prize". With the award to Al Gore and the IPCC in 2007, a total of 95 individuals and 23 organizations have been awarded the Peace Prize. The Prize is awarded at a ceremony in the Oslo City Hall on December 10, the date on which Alfred Nobel died.

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: 1) The peace movement (leaders of the International Peace Bureau and the International Arbitration League); (2) Humanitarian work (Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, the Red Cross, the UNHCR); (3) International Organisations (UN agencies such as the ILO); (4)Disarmament (Alva Myrdal and Alfonso Garcia Robles, Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences); (5) Statesmen (The largest group, including: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Willy Brandt, Henry Kissinger, Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin , Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela and Willem de Klerk, John Hume and David Trimble); (6)Human Rights (Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King, Andrei Sakharov, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the Dalai Lama).

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: During the war the Nobel Peace prize was not given. Actually the years 1939-1943 there was no recipient. The year 1944 saw the International Committee of the Red Cross accept the prize. In the year preceding the war 1938 the prize went to Nansen International Office for Refugees, an organization authorized by the League of Nations in 1930.

Nobel Peace Prize Requirements: Extract from Alfred Nobel's Will:

“The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:
The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my expressed wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.”

By: JamesBurgess

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

nothing in there precludes the committee from considering actions by nominees that are taken AFTER they are nominated and before the award is given.

maineman

10-12-2009, 06:16 AM

I'll wait.

previously asked... previously answered.

red states rule

10-12-2009, 06:19 AM

I'll wait.

Lets be fair and give credit where credit is due

Obama has done alot in 9 months - even Virgil will admit to this long list of accomplishments

1. Offended the Queen of England

2. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia

3. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega

4. Kissed Hugo Chavez on the cheek

5. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia

6. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions

7. Gave away billions to AIG, also without pre-conditions

8. Expanded the bailouts

9. Insulted everyone who has ever loved a Special Olympian

10. Doubled our national debt

11. Announced a termination of the space defense system the day after the North Koreans launched an ICBM.

12. Despite the urgings of his own CIA director and the prior 42 CIA directors, released information on intelligence gathering. Announced major restrictions on interrogation techniques used on enemy combatant prisoners.

13. Accepted without public comment the fact that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other appointees withdrew after they couldn’t take the heat.

14. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who quickly identified as “dangers to the nation” groups including veterans of the military, and opponents to abortion on demand, and who ordered that the word “terrorism” no longer be used but instead referred to such acts as “man made disasters.”

15. Circled the globe so he could openly apologize for America ’s shortcomings and sins.

16. Told Mexicans the violence in their country was mostly caused by illegal guns from the U.S.

17. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from its Department of Commerce origins and announced ACORN [the organization under massive scrutiny amid allegations of election fraud] would manage the process.

18. A ppointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion from America to Cuba of a nine-year old whose mother died trying to bring him to a life of freedom in the United States .

19. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS who took down three terrorists who threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration will likely stand trial for torturing a terrorist who had played a part in killing 3000 Americans by pouring water over his face.

20. On his watch, Air Force One flew over New York City for a photo op without notifying local authorities, causing widespread panic.

21. Took over the American Automobile industry and handed over 50% off to the unions [because he said he owed them] and appointed a czar with no experience of the automotive industry.

22. Continued his drive for abs olute gun control activities, thumbing his nose at the 2nd Amendment.

23. Offered travel and living subsidies in the U.S. to Hamas activists displaced from the Gaza Strip.

24. Got more airtime [TV] than Oprah Winfrey and was often out of Washington instead of tending to the real business of State.

25. Announced the closure of enemy combatants detention center in Guantanamo Bay , Cuba but failed to address the issue of ‘what’ to do with the 200+ prisoners currently held there. Rumors persist that they’ll be housed on U.S. soil, often parroted by the Attorney General.

26. Insists that a legally removed dictator in Honduras be reinstated.

27. Sent condolences to the family of Michael Jackson but not to the survivors of Marine Colonel Ed McMahon or Farrah Fawcett.

http://younggunconservative.com/2009...complishments/

Jeff

10-12-2009, 07:18 AM

Lets be fair and give credit where credit is due

Obama has done alot in 9 months - even Virgil will admit to this long list of accomplishments

1. Offended the Queen of England

2. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia

3. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega

4. Kissed Hugo Chavez on the cheek

5. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia

6. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions

7. Gave away billions to AIG, also without pre-conditions

8. Expanded the bailouts

9. Insulted everyone who has ever loved a Special Olympian

10. Doubled our national debt

11. Announced a termination of the space defense system the day after the North Koreans launched an ICBM.

12. Despite the urgings of his own CIA director and the prior 42 CIA directors, released information on intelligence gathering. Announced major restrictions on interrogation techniques used on enemy combatant prisoners.

13. Accepted without public comment the fact that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other appointees withdrew after they couldn’t take the heat.

14. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who quickly identified as “dangers to the nation” groups including veterans of the military, and opponents to abortion on demand, and who ordered that the word “terrorism” no longer be used but instead referred to such acts as “man made disasters.”

15. Circled the globe so he could openly apologize for America ’s shortcomings and sins.

16. Told Mexicans the violence in their country was mostly caused by illegal guns from the U.S.

17. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from its Department of Commerce origins and announced ACORN [the organization under massive scrutiny amid allegations of election fraud] would manage the process.

18. A ppointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion from America to Cuba of a nine-year old whose mother died trying to bring him to a life of freedom in the United States .

19. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS who took down three terrorists who threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration will likely stand trial for torturing a terrorist who had played a part in killing 3000 Americans by pouring water over his face.

20. On his watch, Air Force One flew over New York City for a photo op without notifying local authorities, causing widespread panic.

21. Took over the American Automobile industry and handed over 50% off to the unions [because he said he owed them] and appointed a czar with no experience of the automotive industry.

22. Continued his drive for abs olute gun control activities, thumbing his nose at the 2nd Amendment.

23. Offered travel and living subsidies in the U.S. to Hamas activists displaced from the Gaza Strip.

24. Got more airtime [TV] than Oprah Winfrey and was often out of Washington instead of tending to the real business of State.

25. Announced the closure of enemy combatants detention center in Guantanamo Bay , Cuba but failed to address the issue of ‘what’ to do with the 200+ prisoners currently held there. Rumors persist that they’ll be housed on U.S. soil, often parroted by the Attorney General.

26. Insists that a legally removed dictator in Honduras be reinstated.

27. Sent condolences to the family of Michael Jackson but not to the survivors of Marine Colonel Ed McMahon or Farrah Fawcett.

http://younggunconservative.com/2009...complishments/

Your wrong on this one Red, Virgil and his kind will never admit to anything that might give the Messiah a black eye, they will just keep spinning :eek:

red states rule

10-12-2009, 11:40 AM

Your wrong on this one Red, Virgil and his kind will never admit to anything that might give the Messiah a black eye, they will just keep spinning :eek:

Looks like MM is now hiding under his computer table and refuses to comment

SassyLady

10-12-2009, 01:29 PM

nothing in there precludes the committee from considering actions by nominees that are taken AFTER they are nominated and before the award is given.

R-E-A-L-L-Y???

The verbage by Mr. Nobel himself that says "shall have done" is pretty clear about things accomplished, not promised.

However, it doesn't matter what the requirements are, what the timing is .......... what is important is WHY. Here's what I think is the reason:

“The internationalists have tied Obama’s hands,” Prof. William Jacobson at the Cornell Law School commented on his blog. “This Peace Prize was given to Obama in order manipulate our policies and national security decisions. And I think it will work. At least until the next Presidential election.”

glockmail

10-12-2009, 01:33 PM

Looks like MM is now hiding under his computer table and refuses to comment He's under there giving his boyfriend head.

Jeff

10-12-2009, 01:39 PM

He's under there giving his boyfriend head.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later

red states rule

10-12-2009, 01:41 PM

He's under there giving his boyfriend head.

Or blowing up his inflatable Obama doll

NightTrain

10-12-2009, 02:58 PM

R-E-A-L-L-Y???

The verbage by Mr. Nobel himself that says "shall have done" is pretty clear about things accomplished, not promised.

This is where Virgil illustrates his new-n-improved definition of "Shall have done" to encompass the phrase "may in the future do."

maineman

10-12-2009, 03:05 PM

R-E-A-L-L-Y???

The verbage by Mr. Nobel himself that says "shall have done" is pretty clear about things accomplished, not promised.

However, it doesn't matter what the requirements are, what the timing is .......... what is important is WHY. Here's what I think is the reason:

“The internationalists have tied Obama’s hands,” Prof. William Jacobson at the Cornell Law School commented on his blog. “This Peace Prize was given to Obama in order manipulate our policies and national security decisions. And I think it will work. At least until the next Presidential election.”

R-E-A-L-L-Y.

Now...if you could show me where it says that he shall have done everything that the prize committee CAN consider prior to 1 Feb, then you might have a point.

you can't.
you don't.

and some Cornell professor somehow is THE F**KING expert and final authority as to the motivations of the Nobel Prize Committee? R-E-A-L-L-Y?????

I missed it where he was given that title.... do you have a link?

red states rule

10-12-2009, 03:10 PM

Hey Virgil, even the AP agrees with the rest of us :laugh2:

Analysis: Obama's Nobel honors promise, not action
By JENNIFER LOVEN (AP) – 3 days ago

WASHINGTON — The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama landed with a shock on darkened, still-asleep Washington. He won! For what?

For one of America's youngest presidents, in office less than nine months — and only for 12 days before the Nobel nomination deadline last February — it was an enormous honor.

The prize seems to be more for Obama's promise than for his performance. The Nobel committee cited as his key accomplishment "a new climate in international politics." The president has become "the world's leading spokesman" for its agenda, the committee said.

He has no standout moment of victory. Not surprising. Like most presidents in their first year, Obama's scorecard so far is largely an "incomplete," if he's being graded.

He banned torture and other extreme interrogation techniques for terrorists. But he also promised to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a source of much distaste for the U.S. around the world, a task with difficulties that have Obama headed to miss his own January 2010 deadline

He said he would end the Iraq war. But he has been slow to bring the troops home and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012, and that's only if both the U.S. and Iraq stick to their current agreement about American troop withdrawals. Meantime, he's running a second war in the Muslim world, in Afghanistan — and is seriously considering ramping that one up.

He has pushed for new efforts to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. But he's received little cooperation from the two sides.

He said he wants a nuclear-free world. But it's one thing to telegraph the desire, in a speech in Prague in April, and quite another to unite other nations and U.S. lawmakers behind the web of treaties and agreements needed to make that reality.

He has said that battling climate change is a priority. But the U.S. seems likely to head into crucial international negotiations set for Copenhagen in December with Obama-backed legislation still stalled in Congress.

And what about Obama's global prestige? It seemed to take a big hit exactly a week ago when he jetted across the Atlantic to lobby for Chicago to get the 2016 Olympics — and was rejected with a last-place finish.

Perhaps for the Nobel committee, merely altering the tone out of Washington toward the rest of the world is enough. Obama got much attention for his speech from Cairo reaching out a U.S. hand to the world's Muslims. His remarks at the U.N. General Assembly last month set down new markers for the way the U.S. works with the world.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gzqP6wOm-0n3ddq-Zez6X801zp1AD9B7J4RO0

NightTrain

10-12-2009, 04:04 PM

and some Cornell professor somehow is THE F**KING expert and final authority as to the motivations of the Nobel Prize Committee? R-E-A-L-L-Y?????

I missed it where he was given that title.... do you have a link?

Within the first 16 seconds of the clip in question, he is identified as the "Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee".

Click, Virgil, and this time pay attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooqkvd8JPfU&feature=channel

red states rule

10-12-2009, 04:05 PM

Within the first 20 seconds of the clip in question, he is identified as the "Secretary of the Nobel Committee".

Click, Virgil, and this time pay attention.

Obviously edited footage Night Train. Is this Fox News video? :laugh2:

NightTrain

10-12-2009, 04:08 PM

Obviously edited footage Night Train. Is this Fox News video? :laugh2:

I've been waiting for that claim, as well.

This whole thing with Virgil is like trying to reason with the guy that argues with a compass whilst lost in the woods.

red states rule

10-12-2009, 04:10 PM

I've been waiting for that claim, as well.

This whole thing with Virgil is like trying to reason with the guy that argues with a compass whilst lost in the woods.

Well with Virgil, he will only move to the left no matter what

maineman

10-12-2009, 04:25 PM

Within the first 16 seconds of the clip in question, he is identified as the "Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee".

Click, Virgil, and this time pay attention.

It seems clear to me that you are a moron who cannot be reasoned with. The Norwegian being interviewed states that the AWARD is GIVEN for the PRECEEDING YEAR. He does not say that the award is given for the year immediately preceeding the date that nominations are due. It is clear that he mentions plenty of things that Obama has done and these things were all done after the nomination was received....but then, he even goes on to show how that is not unusual. He cites the peace prize recipient Oscar Arias Sanchez, who was given the prize in 1987 "for his work for peace in Central America, efforts which led to the accord signed in Guatemala on August 7 this year"

OH NOOOOES!!!!! That was after February 1st!!!! OMIGOD! I wonder if the righties in America threw a major shit fit when Sanchez won the award and he hadn't acheived didddly prior to the nomination deadline?????

and nowhere does the norwegian being interviewed EVER say that the award was given to Obama "in order manipulate our policies and national security decisions."

so...wtf IS your F**KING POINT?

red states rule

10-12-2009, 04:30 PM

Even liberals who voted for Obama do not understand what he did to deserve the Nobel prize

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdSUnzSUQu" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdSUnzSUQu" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

NightTrain

10-12-2009, 04:47 PM

It seems clear to me that you are a moron who cannot be reasoned with. The Norwegian being interviewed states that the AWARD is GIVEN for the PRECEEDING YEAR. He does not say that the award is given for the year immediately preceeding the date that nominations are due. It is clear that he mentions plenty of things that Obama has done and these things were all done after the nomination was received....

I'm proud of you, Virgil, even though you didn't acknowledge that you stand corrected on who the interviewee in question was. How you somehow thought that he was a Cornell Professor is beyond me.

You're welcome.

Now then, now that you've finally actually watched the video, I'm sure you can see your way clear to admit that the award was based on the preceding year, as the Secretary of the Norwegian Committe states several times.

maineman

10-12-2009, 05:07 PM

red states rule

10-12-2009, 05:10 PM

hey dumbfuck.

Your post #102 quoted MY post #100

My post #100 quoted mskurtsprincess's post #95. Go read it.

See where the Cornell professor comment comes from.

DO try and keep up, will ya?

If you can't follow a fucking conversation, then by all means, keep your moronic nose out of it in the first place?

mmmmkay?

great.

And YES.... the award was based on the preceding year.... the 365 days preceding the announcement of the award.

Did you even bother to READ my post where I showed how the norwegian secretary of the committee - in the video that you suggested that I watch - commented how that was not unheard of...of how Oscar Arias Sanchez won an award given out in October for an event that took place merely two months before which was.... IN THE PRECEDING YEAR???

Did you READ that, you stupid, thick as a brick, mouth breathing MORON???????

I didn't think so.

When you can show me a level of intelligence greater than a stalk of asparagus, maybe we can have some more of these scintillating "debates"

not until.

Looks like Virgil the minister is getting testy again

Here is more from a liberal who voted for Obama, and she agrees - he did NOTHING to earn the Nobel prize

Any comment Virgil? You seem to be in a shrinking minority of hardcore liberal hacks who can't admit the truth

President Obama Won What?
Saturday, October 10, 2009

"Mom!" my 12-year-old yelled from the kitchen. "President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize!"

I told her she had to be mistaken.

This is ridiculous -- embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This is supposed to be for doing, not being -- and it's no disrespect to the president to suggest he hasn't done much yet. Certainly not enough to justify this prize.

"Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples?" "Captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future?" Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer: Everybody wins for trying.

Scroll down the list of peace prize winners. Jimmy Carter won in 2002 "for his decades [emphasis added] of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts." Last year's winner, Martti Ahtisaari, was cited "for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades [emphasis added], to resolve international conflicts."

Obama gets the award for, what, a good nine months? Or maybe a good two weeks -- the nominations were due Feb. 1. The other two sitting U.S. presidents who won the prize -- Woodrow Wilson in 1919 for his role in founding the League of Nations, Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War -- were in their second terms.

I imagine that Obama, when they woke him up this morning to deliver the news, grasped the bizarreness of it all. In 2006, when he was only a star senator, he mocked his instant celebrity at the Gridiron Club dinner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100904122.html

maineman

10-12-2009, 05:20 PM

Looks like Virgil the minister is getting testy again

Here is more from a liberal who voted for Obama, and she agrees - he did NOTHING to earn the Nobel prize

Any comment Virgil?

any comment on how the 1987 prize was given out for an event that occured two months prior to the award announcement? (We both know you'll never address THAT question)

And hey.... I was as surprised as anyone about the award. I never thought in a million years that Obama would get this prize....but he did. He certainly didn't lobby for it. It is not HIS fault that the rest of the world thinks he is wonderful.

red states rule

10-12-2009, 05:28 PM

any comment on how the 1987 prize was given out for an event that occured two months prior to the award announcement? (We both know you'll never address THAT question)

And hey.... I was as surprised as anyone about the award. I never thought in a million years that Obama would get this prize....but he did. He certainly didn't lobby for it. It is not HIS fault that the rest of the world thinks he is wonderful.

Even the Obama dronesl are questioning this award. They have some insane notion the prize should be given for achievement, not popularity.

I am sure Obama will do for world peace what he has done for the US economy, the annual defict, the national debt, and his quest to bring the Olympics to Chicago

NightTrain

10-12-2009, 05:33 PM

hey dumbfuck.

Tsk! And this from a 'man of the cloth'? Shameful!

And YES.... the award was based on the preceding year.... the 365 days preceding the announcement of the award.

So, Virgil, this award was based, at least partially, on his time as a Candidate. Think you can see your way clear to admitting you were wrong on this detail as well?

Did you even bother to READ my post where I showed how the norwegian secretary of the committee - in the video that you suggested that I watch - commented how that was not unheard of...of how Oscar Arias Sanchez won an award given out in October for an event that took place merely two months before which was.... IN THE PRECEDING YEAR???

We're not talking about Sanchez, now are we, Virgil?

Did you READ that, you stupid, thick as a brick, mouth breathing MORON???????

Careful, Reverend, you're going to hurt my feelings and make me question my faith! An uncalled-for insult such as this will keep me lying awake at night. That's not nice. At what church did you say you preach, again?

I'd like to look at your website, any minister that speaks to a fellow Christian in such a manner has to be involved in snake-handling or some such nonsense.

Obama has singlehandedly stemmed the tide of muslim hatred for America.

While you are admitting your errors, would you be kind enough to admit this was a foolish thing to say?

Silver

10-12-2009, 05:52 PM

any comment on how the 1987 prize was given out for an event that occured two months prior to the award announcement? (We both know you'll never address THAT question)

And hey.... I was as surprised as anyone about the award. I never thought in a million years that Obama would get this prize....but he did. He certainly didn't lobby for it. It is not HIS fault that the rest of the world thinks he is wonderful.

Maineman says:

"Oscar Arias Sanchez, who was given the prize in 1987 "for his work for peace in Central America, efforts which led to the accord signed in Guatemala on August 7 this year"
---------------------------------
Do you even understand what you read pinhead from maine.......

He was not given the award for the accord signed on August 7, moron...

he was given it for his work for peace in Central America (his efforts to establish peace)......

which eventually lead to the accord...

Did you fail Third grade reading comp ??? Must have

red states rule

10-12-2009, 05:58 PM

Here is the only award Obama deserves:

Best Reader of a Teleprompter While Acting as President

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2009/obama_photoshop/obama_oscar.jpg

Silver

10-12-2009, 05:58 PM

red states rule

10-12-2009, 06:01 PM

Watch it nighttrain...the pinhead NEVER admits mistakes no matter how obvious they are to the rest of us, but he will make a desperate attempt to change the subject of the thread, attack you spelling/grammer or torture the definitions of simple words until he makes you vomit.... I all but guarantee it....:lol:

Well you really can't expect him to talk about Obama's accomplishments do you?

If he did, he would have nothing to say and MM would be all dressed up with no place to go

Silver

10-12-2009, 06:31 PM

Well you really can't expect him to talk about Obama's accomplishments do you?

If he did, he would have nothing to say and MM would be all dressed up with no place to go

You mean 'the lights would be on, but nobody would be home'......:laugh:

red states rule

10-12-2009, 06:37 PM

You mean 'the lights would be on, but nobody would be home'......:laugh:

Yea, his solar panels are covered with snow caused by global warming

maineman

10-12-2009, 07:42 PM

Tsk! And this from a 'man of the cloth'? Shameful!

So, Virgil, this award was based, at least partially, on his time as a Candidate. Think you can see your way clear to admitting you were wrong on this detail as well?

We're not talking about Sanchez, now are we, Virgil?

Careful, Reverend, you're going to hurt my feelings and make me question my faith! An uncalled-for insult such as this will keep me lying awake at night. That's not nice. At what church did you say you preach, again?

I'd like to look at your website, any minister that speaks to a fellow Christian in such a manner has to be involved in snake-handling or some such nonsense.

While you are admitting your errors, would you be kind enough to admit this was a foolish thing to say?

Fuck you asshole. YOU are the one who screwed up. YOU are the one who can't follow the conversaton. YOU are the one who quotes posts without understanding the context of the conversation. YOU are the one who didn't even see mskurtsprincess's post which had the quote from the cornell professor that you tried to make ME see like I didn't know where it came from. YOU are the one who whines about Obama not doing anythbing before Feb 1st that would cause him to be considered for the prize, yet run away from your OWN FUCKING video where the norwegian being interviewed gives an example of a guy who won the award for something done MONTHS after the nominations were supposedly closed.

No shit... the preceding year from the date of the award includes time when Obama was a candidate. NOTHING theat ANYONE has said has shown that ANYTHING other than those things he has done as PRESIDENT were considered by the prize committee. YOU are fucking wrong and you don't have the balls to admit it.

fucking pathetic, in my opinion.

we're done.

red states rule

10-12-2009, 07:44 PM

Fuck you asshole. YOU are the one who screwed up. YOU are the one who can't follow the conversaton. YOU are the one who quotes posts without understanding the context of the conversation. YOU are the one who didn't even see mskurtsprincess's post which had the quote from the cornell professor that you tried to make ME see like I didn't know where it came from. YOU are the one who whines about Obama not doing anythbing before Feb 1st that would cause him to be considered for the prize, yet run away from your OWN FUCKING video where the norwegian being interviewed gives an example of a guy who won the award for something done MONTHS after the nominations were supposedly closed.

No shit... the preceding year from the date of the award includes time when Obama was a candidate. NOTHING theat ANYONE has said has shown that ANYTHING other than those things he has done as PRESIDENT were considered by the prize committee. YOU are fucking wrong and you don't have the balls to admit it.

fucking pathetic, in my opinion.

we're done.

My another entry for your church bullentin

http://www.azstarnet.com/ss/2009/10/11/312081.png

maineman

10-12-2009, 07:45 PM

Maineman says:

"Oscar Arias Sanchez, who was given the prize in 1987 "for his work for peace in Central America, efforts which led to the accord signed in Guatemala on August 7 this year"
---------------------------------
Do you even understand what you read pinhead from maine.......

He was not given the award for the accord signed on August 7, moron...

he was given it for his work for peace in Central America (his efforts to establish peace)......

which eventually lead to the accord...

Did you fail Third grade reading comp ??? Must have

if thge accord had not been signed, he would not have won the award. He won the award because of his efforts thoughout the previous year.... the awards committee did not refuse to consider any of his accomplishments after the 1 February nomination date. got it, moron? GOOD.

maineman

10-12-2009, 07:46 PM

my another entry for your church bullentin

fuck you asshole. You'll never get anywhere near my church bulletin.

Got it?

red states rule

10-12-2009, 07:46 PM

glockmail

10-12-2009, 07:48 PM

Fuck you asshole. YOU are the one who screwed up. YOU are the one who can't follow the conversaton. YOU are the one who quotes posts without understanding the context of the conversation. YOU are the one who didn't even see mskurtsprincess's post which had the quote from the cornell professor that you tried to make ME see like I didn't know where it came from. YOU are the one who whines about Obama not doing anythbing before Feb 1st that would cause him to be considered for the prize, yet run away from your OWN FUCKING video where the norwegian being interviewed gives an example of a guy who won the award for something done MONTHS after the nominations were supposedly closed.

No shit... the preceding year from the date of the award includes time when Obama was a candidate. NOTHING theat ANYONE has said has shown that ANYTHING other than those things he has done as PRESIDENT were considered by the prize committee. YOU are fucking wrong and you don't have the balls to admit it.

fucking pathetic, in my opinion.

we're done.

The funny thing about you Virgil is that in spite of your insistence that you're so smart, you're the only person I know on the internet who let their identity become known unintentionally, and that's got to be the dumbest thing that I've ever seen anyone do on a message board. :lol:

red states rule

10-12-2009, 07:50 PM

maineman

10-12-2009, 07:50 PM

red states rule

10-12-2009, 07:51 PM

just a matter of time until we know yours.

Your are such a modest guy Virgil. Of course you have alot to be modest about son

maineman

10-12-2009, 07:52 PM

Virgil never opens his mouth without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge

anmy comment about how Oscar Arias Sanchez won the Nobel Peace Prize for getting a peace treaty signed only two months before the prize was awarded?

I notice that you ran away from that like you run away from anything requiring any intellectual input.

stupid disgusting party-first traitor.

Like I said... I took an oath to protect America against vermin like you.

maineman

10-12-2009, 07:53 PM

Your are such a modest guy Virgil. Of course you have alot to be modest about son

I haven't even tried looking for yours, red.... be a smart guy and don't give me reason to.

red states rule

10-12-2009, 07:55 PM

I haven't even tried looking for yours, red.... be a smart guy and don't give me reason to.

Virgil, your whole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

[

Missileman

10-12-2009, 07:56 PM

if thge accord had not been signed, he would not have won the award.

That is of course mere speculation on your part.

red states rule

10-12-2009, 08:03 PM

That is of course mere speculation on your part.

Virgil's mind is so open that the wind blows right through it

maineman

10-12-2009, 08:05 PM

That is of course mere speculation on your part.
it WAS THE reason they gave for the award.

speculate that up your well travelled ass.

red states rule

10-12-2009, 08:08 PM

it WAS THE reason they gave for the award.

speculate that up your well travelled ass.

I would like to have a discussion that could reach your mind. Where is it right now?

http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp227/oatka/Nobelteleprompter.jpg

maineman

10-12-2009, 08:08 PM

anmy comment about how Oscar Arias Sanchez won the Nobel Peace Prize for getting a peace treaty signed only two months before the prize was awarded?

I notice that you ran away from that like you run away from anything requiring any intellectual input.

stupid disgusting party-first traitor.

Like I said... I took an oath to protect America against vermin like you.

no comment red?

no comment about how they gave an award to a guy for something he had done two months before they handed out the award?

really?

are you gonna fucking just run away from this like a complete pussy?

really???

maineman

10-12-2009, 08:12 PM

no comment red?

no comment about how they gave an award to a guy for something he had done two months before they handed out the award?

really?

are you gonna fucking just run away from this like a complete pussy?

really???

I figured you would.

domestic enemy.

red states rule

10-12-2009, 08:12 PM

red states rule

10-12-2009, 08:14 PM

I figured you would.

domestic enemy.

Riddle me this

What has a tiny brain, a big mouth, and an opinion nobody cares about?

Answer - Virgil

maineman

10-12-2009, 08:18 PM

What's on your mind Virgil - if you'll overlook the overstatement

I realize the following a conversation on a message board is difficult when someone like you has a limited intellect and has shown the ability to only parrot other people's words, so let me restate my question once again and maybe this time you'll actually show the intellect and the grace to honestly answer it:

why do you avoid commenting on the the fact that the prize committee previously gave the prize for an accomplishment that occurred six months after the deadline for nominations?

I'll wait.... but again...we BOTH know that you don't have the brains or the balls to answer it honestly.

Missileman

10-12-2009, 08:20 PM

it WAS THE reason they gave for the award.

speculate that up your well travelled ass.

The citation clearly stated his award was "for his work for peace in Central America". No speculation required. No accord necessary, though it is listed in the citation as a result of the work he put in.

red states rule

10-12-2009, 08:21 PM

I realize the following a conversation on a message board is difficult when someone like you has a limited intellect and has shown the ability to only parrot other people's owords, so let me restate my question once again and maybe this time you'll actually show the intellect and the grace to honestly answer it:

why do you avoid commenting on the the fact that the prize committee previously gave the prize for an accomplishment that occurred six months after the deadline for nominations?

I'll wait.... but again...we BOTH know that you don't have the brains or the balls to answer it honestly.

Virgil, some people live and learn. You just live

As a "minister" instead of being born again, why don't you just grow up?

maineman

10-12-2009, 08:25 PM

Virgil, some people live and learn. You just live

As a "minister" instead of being born again, why don't you just grow up?

why are you such a coward that you run away from a simple question?

why do you avoid commenting on the the fact that the prize committee previously gave the prize for an accomplishment that occurred six months after the deadline for nominations?

maineman

10-12-2009, 08:28 PM

The citation clearly stated his award was "for his work for peace in Central America". No speculation required. No accord necessary, though it is listed in the citation as a result of the work he put in.

no accord necessary?

I am glad you admitted that.... so you are saying that Sanchez didn't need to actually accomplish peace...or accomplish anything for that matter ... for the committee to award him the peace prize for his efforts?

and it also seems that you ARE agreeing that the committee DID consider his actions AFTER the Feb 1 nomination deadline.

Thanks... that was all I needed to hear.

we're done here.

SassyLady

10-12-2009, 08:31 PM

why do you avoid commenting on the the fact that the prize committee previously gave the prize for an accomplishment that occurred six months after the deadline for nominations?

I'll bite MM: at least it was for a recognizable accomplishment, and not given for promises made and for the sole purpose of influencing American foreign policy to lean toward socialistic european ideology.

Missileman

10-12-2009, 08:35 PM

no accord necessary?

I am glad you admitted that.... so you are saying that Sanchez didn't need to actually accomplish peace...or accomplish anything for that matter ... for the committee to award him the peace prize for his efforts?

and it also seems that you ARE agreeing that the committee DID consider his actions AFTER the Feb 1 nomination deadline.

Thanks... that was all I needed to hear.

we're done here.

They acknowledged the accord that resulted from his hard work...it's right there in black and white. However, there is nothing in that citation that indicates his award hinged on the accord being reached. Much like Al Gore hasn't solved global climate change, but was given an award for his efforts toward that goal.

BO hasn't done anything to warrant a nomination, much less a win.

maineman

10-12-2009, 08:38 PM

They acknowledged the accord that resulted from his hard work...it's right there in black and white. However, there is nothing in that citation that indicates his award hinged on the accord being reached. Much like Al Gore hasn't solved global climate change, but was given an award for his efforts toward that goal.

BO hasn't done anything to warrant a nomination, much less a win.

you acknowledge that they considered things that happened AFTER the 1 february nomination date?

as I said...thank you... that's all I needed to hear

maineman

10-12-2009, 08:40 PM

I'll bite MM: at least it was for a recognizable accomplishment, and not given for promises made and for the sole purpose of influencing American foreign policy to lean toward socialistic european ideology.

you'll bite?

a few posts ago you were calling me crazy for suggesting that the committee would - or even COULD - consider things that happened after 1 February.

Make up your mind.

maineman

10-12-2009, 08:46 PM

maineman

10-12-2009, 08:48 PM

and as the cowardly partisan hacks scuttle away like cockroaches when the lights come on, I'll go sleep the sleep of the righteous.:salute:

Silver

10-12-2009, 09:02 PM

if thge accord had not been signed, he would not have won the award. He won the award because of his efforts thoughout the previous year.... the awards committee did not refuse to consider any of his accomplishments after the 1 February nomination date. :link: got it, moron? GOOD.

Really? The historical record as of NOW states he "received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to end civil wars then raging in several other Central American countries." PERIOD!

Not a damn word about ANY accord being signed....
You have no clue what the committee considered or what they didn't...
He was nominated for his work long before he received the award....

Its amazing you make shit up and think folks are just gonna buy it cause you say so....the longer you hang around, the freekin' more idiotic you get....

Obamas nomination should not have even been accepted in Feb. because as of then (and as of now) he didn't do diddley squat .....

I don't see why you stay around here and humiliate yourself night after night...:dev3:

Silver

10-12-2009, 09:06 PM

and after all your whining about 1 February... and all your whining about how you all don't think he deserves it.... you should all take a moment and step back and admit that you are all such partisan hateful HACKS that you would somehow NOT be proud of the fact that our president has won the Nobel Peace Prize....

Hes the laughing stock of world right now....and the Nobel prize has become a joke to everyone...

you adore party over country to such a degree that you cannot celebrate this achievement and the international prestige it brings to our country.

you would rather have the world hate us for our Bushian unilateralism than rejoice that the world sees us, once again, as maybe, just maybe, actiing like the guys with the white hats once again.

that sort of country-denigrating partisanship makes me ill..

avatar4321

10-12-2009, 09:08 PM

SassyLady

10-12-2009, 09:11 PM

R-E-A-L-L-Y.

Now...if you could show me where it says that he shall have done everything that the prize committee CAN consider prior to 1 Feb, then you might have a point.

you can't.
you don't.

and some Cornell professor somehow is THE F**KING expert and final authority as to the motivations of the Nobel Prize Committee? R-E-A-L-L-Y?????

I missed it where he was given that title.... do you have a link?

I would think he's a much an expert on what the Nobel Prize Committee's motivations are as is everyone that you've posted as being an expert.

SassyLady

10-12-2009, 09:16 PM

you'll bite?

a few posts ago you were calling me crazy for suggesting that the committee would - or even COULD - consider things that happened after 1 February.

Make up your mind.

MM - I have never called you crazy. I don't resort to calling people names. I will, however, challenge your assertions for as long as I think I have a valid point. I don't think you are crazy, I think you have the tenacity of a pit bull and I admire you for sticking to your guns. I just wish you could do it without the name calling and personal attacks.

And, I have only said that Obama has done nothing - before or after 2/1/09 to deserve an award. I still stand by that position, regardless of when they made their decision. He has accomplished nothing...........just spewing a bunch of rhetoric does not deserve an award.

Missileman

10-12-2009, 09:18 PM

you acknowledge that they considered things that happened AFTER the 1 february nomination date?

as I said...thank you... that's all I needed to hear

That's not what I said. I said they acknowledged the results of his work in the citation. You're the one who says they considered the accord when deciding who to give the award to. As yet, the only thing you've offered is your opinion of that.

Missileman

10-12-2009, 09:24 PM

and after all your whining about 1 February... and all your whining about how you all don't think he deserves it.... you should all take a moment and step back and admit that you are all such partisan hateful HACKS that you would somehow NOT be proud of the fact that our president has won the Nobel Peace Prize....

you adore party over country to such a degree that you cannot celebrate this achievement and the international prestige it brings to our country.

you would rather have the world hate us for our Bushian unilateralism than rejoice that the world sees us, once again, as maybe, just maybe, actiing like the guys with the white hats once again.

that sort of country-denigrating partisanship makes me ill.

And you blindly ignore that the award may be an attempt to weaken our stances with Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan. Kinda hard to wage war and be peaceful at the same time.

Mr. P

10-12-2009, 10:03 PM

previously asked... previously answered.

BS..you tap dance well Virgy. What DID Bambam do to receive the joke of an award cept tripling the U.S. deficit?

I'll wait.

NightTrain

10-12-2009, 10:57 PM

Fuck you asshole.

Coming from a Man of the Cloth, this disturbs me greatly. I am questioning my Christian upbringing, since a Minister is labeling me as such.

I've never heard such language from a Man of God. I think there were severe penalties in corrupting Children of God in the Gospel. I, along with thousands of others that don't bother to register, have seen this. I think you need to repent severely, with Islam-style back whipping to serve until you reach Hell. There's no time like the present!

NOTHING theat ANYONE has said has shown that ANYTHING other than those things he has done as PRESIDENT were considered by the prize committee. YOU are fucking wrong and you don't have the balls to admit it.

fucking pathetic, in my opinion.

Let's see. The Interviewer says that he's just been elected. The Norwegian Commie says, (paraphrased) that they project Nobel's wishes and then goes on to comment that they didn't follow the letter of Nobel's wishes, and that they gave the award based on "what Obama will do".

Watch the questions and answers, that's what happened.

You can't deny it, Slick.

This award was meant to influence future decisions and anyone watching that clip can't deny it.

Before you spew more bullshit you can't back up, watch and listen carefully.

Be a man, and say you're wrong. Without embarassing your Church as a Man of God - not that anyone on this board actually thinks you are.

BTW - You didn't say what Church you're affiliated with, I'm sure that's an oversight.
Please let us all know what kind of 'Minister' uses these sorts of words.

NightTrain

10-12-2009, 11:09 PM

I think it speaks volumes that not ONE of the other board idiots would even say "hi" in this thread.

Only Virgil would attempt to defend such utter bullshit, and that speaks volumes.

The rest said, "No way!"

NightTrain

10-12-2009, 11:27 PM

The funny thing about you Virgil is that in spite of your insistence that you're so smart, you're the only person I know on the internet who let their identity become known unintentionally, and that's got to be the dumbest thing that I've ever seen anyone do on a message board. :lol:

I think I need to take a trip [paid for by the Alaska Permanent Fund] to educate these people getting brainwashed by Virgil.

Any questions by the members of this board, just send me a PM and I will pose it to the members of that 'church'.

NT

red states rule

10-13-2009, 05:06 AM

Did anyone see Obama's message he gave before last nights Monday night football game?

I thought he was there to pick up his Super Bowl ring - not the one he won, but the won he promised would win in the future

President Obama to deliver Monday night message

http://blogs.nfl.com/category/sidelines/

maineman

10-13-2009, 06:13 AM

Let's see. The Interviewer says that he's just been elected. The Norwegian Commie says, (paraphrased) that they project Nobel's wishes and then goes on to comment that they didn't follow the letter of Nobel's wishes, and that they gave the award based on "what Obama will do".

Watch the questions and answers, that's what happened.

You can't deny it, Slick.

This award was meant to influence future decisions and anyone watching that clip can't deny it.

Before you spew more bullshit you can't back up, watch and listen carefully.

YOU are the one who tried to say that only those actions done prior to Feb 1 could be considered. I proved you wrong using your own video tape evidence. The award was given for Obama's work during the past year... nine months of which were as president of the united states.

Like I have said, I was as surprised as anyone that Obama won the peace prize, but that does not stop me from being proud, as an American, that the world thinks that my president has changed the conversation about peace in the world, that he has championed nuclear disarmament, that he has championed doing something about climate change, that he has reached out to the muslim world in a way that no president has ever done, that he has gotten Russia to back sanctions against Iran, which no president has ever done, that he has gotten the Iranian government to allow UN inspectors back into the country.... and he did all that in just one year. I realize that the hatred of Obama from the right... the party over country mentality of the republican party.... has blinded them to the fact that the REST of the world is really impressed with our president. pathetic.

maineman

10-13-2009, 06:21 AM

red states rule

10-13-2009, 06:23 AM

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama appears to have gotten a slight bounce in support after he was announced as the Nobel Peace Prize winner on Friday. His 56% job approval rating for the last two Gallup Daily tracking updates is up from a term-low 50% as recently as last week, and 53% in the three days before the Nobel winner was announced.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123629/Obama-Job-Approval-56-After-Nobel-Win.aspx

He is still stuck at 49% in this daily tracking poll

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/october_2009/obama_approval_index_october_12_2009/253895-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_october_12_2009.jpg

jimnyc

10-13-2009, 07:13 AM

YOU are the one who tried to say that only those actions done prior to Feb 1 could be considered. I proved you wrong using your own video tape evidence. The award was given for Obama's work during the past year... nine months of which were as president of the united states.

Like I have said, I was as surprised as anyone that Obama won the peace prize, but that does not stop me from being proud, as an American, that the world thinks that my president has changed the conversation about peace in the world, that he has championed nuclear disarmament, that he has championed doing something about climate change, that he has reached out to the muslim world in a way that no president has ever done, that he has gotten Russia to back sanctions against Iran, which no president has ever done, that he has gotten the Iranian government to allow UN inspectors back into the country.... and he did all that in just one year. I realize that the hatred of Obama from the right... the party over country mentality of the republican party.... has blinded them to the fact that the REST of the world is really impressed with our president. pathetic.

1- Regarding Russia backing sanctions:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_clinton_russia

2- Can you articulate "change" that has happened regarding the world Muslim population due to Obama's speech? Not an opinion, but actual results other than more terror attacks that have occurred?

3- Can you show that it was a result of something Obama did that Iran is allowing the formerly hidden nuke plant to be inspected? Please be specific with these facts.

4- Almost every president in the past 40 years has championed nuclear disarmament in some way, but I'll await "results" before judging further. Simply championing a cause doesn't "accomplish" much. Also, climate change, IMO, doesn't do much to make someone worthy of a "peace" prize.

red states rule

10-13-2009, 07:25 AM

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2009/10/09/ECObamaNobelBoxUFSCOLOR_t756.jpg?362c89b9f4298c1f7 d888d4fceb46698f5dfcc26

glockmail

10-13-2009, 07:53 AM

just a matter of time until we know yours. Sure Virgil. You and your friend who you have called gay must be really busy trying to track me down. This again proves your stupidity and incompetence, as well as creepiness that you have accused me and others of.

red states rule

10-13-2009, 09:29 AM

red states rule

10-13-2009, 09:34 AM

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/M/y/2/obama-nobel.gif

red states rule

10-13-2009, 09:52 AM

I love the look on liberal Mika's face when Joe points out the truth about the award

It is funny as hell

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LIvbjt4zuf0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LIvbjt4zuf0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Trigg

10-13-2009, 11:01 AM

YOU are the one who tried to say that only those actions done prior to Feb 1 could be considered. I proved you wrong using your own video tape evidence. The award was given for Obama's work during the past year... nine months of which were as president of the united states.

Like I have said, I was as surprised as anyone that Obama won the peace prize, but that does not stop me from being proud, as an American, that the world thinks that my president has changed the conversation about peace in the world, that he has championed nuclear disarmament, that he has championed doing something about climate change, that he has reached out to the muslim world in a way that no president has ever done, that he has gotten Russia to back sanctions against Iran, which no president has ever done, that he has gotten the Iranian government to allow UN inspectors back into the country.... and he did all that in just one year. I realize that the hatred of Obama from the right... the party over country mentality of the republican party.... has blinded them to the fact that the REST of the world is really impressed with our president. pathetic.

You are so full of it. The video clearly says "previous year".

You are probably the only person on the planet who considers earlier in the same year to be "previous year".

Claiming he deserves this award because he championed disarmament and climet change is beyond assinine. HE HAS DONE NOTHING CONCRETE. NOTHING, except TALK.

Trigg

10-13-2009, 11:06 AM

and after all your whining about 1 February... and all your whining about how you all don't think he deserves it.... you should all take a moment and step back and admit that you are all such partisan hateful HACKS that you would somehow NOT be proud of the fact that our president has won the Nobel Peace Prize....

you adore party over country to such a degree that you cannot celebrate this achievement and the international prestige it brings to our country.

you would rather have the world hate us for our Bushian unilateralism than rejoice that the world sees us, once again, as maybe, just maybe, actiing like the guys with the white hats once again.

that sort of country-denigrating partisanship makes me ill.

You calling anyone else a partisan hack is laughable.

Other presidents have won this prize and DESERVED IT. I am proud of their accomplishments. Damn, there's that word again ACCOMPLISHMENT, something bambam is sadly lacking. Since he's done jack shit since getting in office besides driving up the deficit.

maineman

10-13-2009, 12:29 PM

You are so full of it. The video clearly says "previous year".

You are probably the only person on the planet who considers earlier in the same year to be "previous year".

Claiming he deserves this award because he championed disarmament and climet change is beyond assinine. HE HAS DONE NOTHING CONCRETE. NOTHING, except TALK.

and yet, you run away from the fact that Oscar Arias Sanchez won the award "for his work for peace in Central America, efforts which led to the accord signed in Guatemala on August 7 this year"

care to explain that Trigg?

And there have been many Nobel Prize winners whose accomplishments have been measured in words. Obama's words have created a new environment for international cooperation.

And AGAIN....he is OUR president. He didn't ASK for this award. Why in the world are you unable to be proud of our president for receiving this award?

Well... we both know why, don't we? Because you, like Rush, want him to fail and cannot stand it when anyone anywhere says anything good about that uppity boy from Chicago.

Trigg

10-13-2009, 12:42 PM

and yet, you run away from the fact that Oscar Arias Sanchez won the award "for his work for peace in Central America, efforts which led to the accord signed in Guatemala on August 7 this year"

care to explain that Trigg?

And there have been many Nobel Prize winners whose accomplishments have been measured in words. Obama's words have created a new environment for international cooperation.

And AGAIN....he is OUR president. He didn't ASK for this award. Why in the world are you unable to be proud of our president for receiving this award?

Well... we both know why, don't we? Because you, like Rush, want him to fail and cannot stand it when anyone anywhere says anything good about that uppity boy from Chicago.

Your loosing the debate so your gonna throw in the race card now? Well I guess we know what to look for when you having nothing else to say. PATHETIC :laugh2:

I am proud of the presidents and prior recipients that EARNED THIS AWARD.

maineman

10-13-2009, 12:58 PM

Your loosing the debate so your gonna throw in the race card now? Well I guess we know what to look for when you having nothing else to say. PATHETIC :laugh2:

I am proud of the presidents and prior recipients that EARNED THIS AWARD.

still running away from Mr. Sanchez, I see.:poke:

and according to the folks who hand out the award, our president DID earn it...

but like I said.... you can't STAND to see a democratic president have success in anything.

hack

Trigg

10-13-2009, 01:11 PM

still running away from Mr. Sanchez, I see.:poke:

and according to the folks who hand out the award, our president DID earn it...

but like I said.... you can't STAND to see a democratic president have success in anything.

hack

Really? That's what I typed???? Was Carter a Democratic President??? Wait......yes he was...and I clearly stated that I am proud of the presidents and other recipients that EARNED the award.

Look at that wrong twice :laugh2:

maineman

10-13-2009, 01:29 PM

Really? That's what I typed???? Was Carter a Democratic President??? Wait......yes he was...and I clearly stated that I am proud of the presidents and other recipients that EARNED the award.

Look at that wrong twice :laugh2:

STILL running away from Sanchez????

why not stop and explain it?

Trigg

10-13-2009, 01:53 PM

STILL running away from Sanchez????

why not stop and explain it?

I didn't bring up Sanchez, your arguing with the wrong person (Lord there's that pesky work again) :lame2:

Still running from the fact that I do support democratic winners :laugh2:

maineman

10-13-2009, 03:21 PM

I didn't bring up Sanchez, your arguing with the wrong person (Lord there's that pesky work again) :lame2:

Still running from the fact that I do support democratic winners

I brought up Sanchez to show YOU that your silly argument that preceding year means the year before the calendar year that the award was made or that the nomination was made was total bullshit.

"Preceding year", in Sanchez' case meant two months before the award was announced.

NOW.... quit tap dancing and explain that.... or run away from it.:laugh2:

And you certainly do NOT applaud the fact that OUR president won a very presitigious award. The fact that you may have applauded democrats in the PAST does not make you any less of a disgusting party before country hack NOW.

maineman

10-13-2009, 03:23 PM

BS..you tap dance well Virgy. What DID Bambam do to receive the joke of an award cept tripling the U.S. deficit?

I'll wait.

you can keep asking questions that have already been asked and that I have already answered until hell freezes over... the result will be the same.

Silver

10-13-2009, 03:42 PM

I brought up Sanchez to show YOU that your silly argument that preceding year means the year before the calendar year that the award was made or that the nomination was made was total bullshit.

"Preceding year", in Sanchez' case meant two months before the award was announced.

NOW.... quit tap dancing and explain that.... or run away from it.:laugh2:

And you certainly do NOT applaud the fact that OUR president won a very presitigious award. The fact that you may have applauded democrats in the PAST does not make you any less of a disgusting party before country hack NOW.

This has nothing to do with Sanchez, pinhead, and you know it...Sanchez was nominated for the work he accomplished prior to his nomination and awarded for it....his award was for his work already done....
Realistically, Obamas nomination should not have even been considered....he did nothing to earn a nomination in the first place...therefore his award is bogus, as many world leaders have so stated....as he has so stated, and WE agree with him....:laugh2:

Trigg

10-13-2009, 03:56 PM

I brought up Sanchez to show YOU that your silly argument that preceding year means the year before the calendar year that the award was made or that the nomination was made was total bullshit.

"Preceding year", in Sanchez' case meant two months before the award was announced.

NOW.... quit tap dancing and explain that.... or run away from it.:laugh2:

And you certainly do NOT applaud the fact that OUR president won a very presitigious award. The fact that you may have applauded democrats in the PAST does not make you any less of a disgusting party before country hack NOW.

Your clearly confused. Lets start over.

I said I applauded the award given to past presidents and recipients who DESERVED it. Including Carter, who's a Democrat.

You stated
you can't STAND to see a democratic president have success in anything. which clearly goes against what I wrote. YOU WERE WRONG.

A party hack would not back anyone not in their party. A party hack would defend anyone in his party even if they don't deseve it. Gee who's the party hack again??? I think you need to go look in the mirror.

As far as bambam's award is concerned. I watched the video. The committee man clearly states he made his decision based on bambam's promises made the "previous year". You want to change the definition of Previous Year, that's your problem. I'm going on what the man said in the video.

maineman

10-13-2009, 05:27 PM

Your clearly confused. Lets start over.

I said I applauded the award given to past presidents and recipients who DESERVED it. Including Carter, who's a Democrat.

You stated which clearly goes against what I wrote. YOU WERE WRONG.

A party hack would not back anyone not in their party. A party hack would defend anyone in his party even if they don't deseve it. Gee who's the party hack again??? I think you need to go look in the mirror.

As far as bambam's award is concerned. I watched the video. The committee man clearly states he made his decision based on bambam's promises made the "previous year". You want to change the definition of Previous Year, that's your problem. I'm going on what the man said in the video.

and, as I said, and as the Sanchez award clearly indicates, the Nobel Prize Committee considers the previous year to be the previous 365 days prior to the awarding of the prize. Now if you can't show the grace to simply admit that you were DEAD wrong and that you don't have a freakin' CLUE what previous year actually means when it comes to the Nobel Prize, then I guess we're all done, sister.

And I would be proud of ANY American who the Nobel Prize Committee thought ought to receive the Peace Prize, or any other Prize, for that matter. That is what differentiates us. Winning the Nobel Prize is GOOD for our country...whether it is the Peace Prize or the Prize for Economics or the Prize for for Chemistry or the Prize for Physics or the Prize for Literature. Having Americans win Nobel Prizes OUGHT to make REAL Americans happy...but clearly, to traitorous party first partisan hacks like you who love your ideology more than you do you country, that is not the case.

Go read up on your Rush talking points for tomorrow and quit trying to convince me that you are anything but a hack who can't admit when you are wrong.

Missileman

10-13-2009, 05:32 PM

and, as I said, and as the Sanchez award clearly indicates, the Nobel Prize Committee considers the previous year to be the previous 365 days prior to the awarding of the prize. Now if you can't show the grace to simply admit that you were DEAD wrong and that you don't have a freakin' CLUE what previous year actually means when it comes to the Nobel Prize, then I guess we're all done, sister.

And I would be proud of ANY American who the Nobel Prize Committee thought ought to receive the Peace Prize, or any other Prize, for that matter. That is what differentiates us. Winning the Nobel Prize is GOOD for our country...whether it is the Peace Prize or the Prize for Economics or the Prize for for Chemistry or the Prize for Physics or the Prize for Literature. Having Americans win Nobel Prizes OUGHT to make REAL Americans happy...but clearly, to traitorous party first partisan hacks like you who love your ideology more than you do you country, that is not the case.

Go read up on your Rush talking points for tomorrow and quit trying to convince me that you are anything but a hack who can't admit when you are wrong.

You still haven't posted a single thing that supports your argument that Sanchez' award hinged on the accord.

maineman

10-13-2009, 06:50 PM

You still haven't posted a single thing that supports your argument that Sanchez' award hinged on the accord.

I never said it "hinged" on anything...only that they obviously considered the accord when making the award, or they wouldn't have mentioned it in the citation, and the accord took place two months before the award was made, which is in the previous year - the previous 365 days prior to the announcement of the award.

Missileman

10-13-2009, 07:05 PM

I never said it "hinged" on anything...only that they obviously considered the accord when making the award, or they wouldn't have mentioned it in the citation, and the accord took place two months before the award was made, which is in the previous year - the previous 365 days prior to the announcement of the award.

So you've got nothing besides your opinion about whether the accord was a factor in his award.

Let's, for the sake of argument, stipulate that the commitee keeps an eye on all the nominees for accomplishments that might make one more deserving than the others. What has BO accomplished since February that might be considered award worthy?

maineman

10-13-2009, 07:37 PM

So you've got nothing besides your opinion about whether the accord was a factor in his award.

Let's, for the sake of argument, stipulate that the commitee keeps an eye on all the nominees for accomplishments that might make one more deserving than the others. What has BO accomplished since February that might be considered award worthy?

mo....let's, for the sake of argument, say that the accord was NOT a factor whatsoever in Sanchez's award. Then, it would seem to me that your position is that the Nobel Prize Committee gave the Peace Prize to Sanchez for the work he had done in the calendar year 1986... and considering that he didn't even delineate any peace plan of any sort until February of that year and it was greeted with wide skepticism region-wide, he didn't take office until May of that year and he didn't begin his diplomacy with the five other central american heads of state until the very end of the year....and, at the end of calendar year 1986, he had not accomplished ANYTHING with regard to peace in central America or anywhere else, for that matter.

And yet... I don't remember a giant upwelling of righteous indignation on the part of the conservative movement in America - or Costa Rica for that matter.

Can you explain your apparent hypocrisy here? Are you suggesting that Nobel Peace Prizes can be given for game changing good intentions - unless they are given out to American presidents that you don't like?

Or are you willing to admit that your idiotic "preceding year" argument is precisely that?

Pick your poison.

Missileman

10-13-2009, 07:51 PM

mo....let's, for the sake of argument, say that the accord was NOT a factor whatsoever in Sanchez's award. Then, it would seem to me that your position is that the Nobel Prize Committee gave the Peace Prize to Sanchez for the work he had done in the calendar year 1986... and considering that he didn't even delineate any peace plan of any sort until February of that year and it was greeted with wide skepticism region-wide, he didn't take office until May of that year and he didn't begin his diplomacy with the five other central american heads of state until the very end of the year....and, at the end of calendar year 1986, he had not accomplished ANYTHING with regard to peace in central America or anywhere else, for that matter.

And yet... I don't remember a giant upwelling of righteous indignation on the part of the conservative movement in America - or Costa Rica for that matter.

Can you explain your apparent hypocrisy here? Are you suggesting that Nobel Peace Prizes can be given for game changing good intentions - unless they are given out to American presidents that you don't like?

Or are you willing to admit that your idiotic "preceding year" argument is precisely that?

Pick your poison.

I think you should answer my question first. Then I'll take a shot at yours.

maineman

10-13-2009, 07:58 PM

1- Regarding Russia backing sanctions:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_clinton_russia

2- Can you articulate "change" that has happened regarding the world Muslim population due to Obama's speech? Not an opinion, but actual results other than more terror attacks that have occurred?

3- Can you show that it was a result of something Obama did that Iran is allowing the formerly hidden nuke plant to be inspected? Please be specific with these facts.

4- Almost every president in the past 40 years has championed nuclear disarmament in some way, but I'll await "results" before judging further. Simply championing a cause doesn't "accomplish" much. Also, climate change, IMO, doesn't do much to make someone worthy of a "peace" prize.

1. and yet, the mere threat of Russia getting on board apparently caused Iran to reconsider its opposition to UN inspectors.

2. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2009/06/obama-and-the-muslim-world.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/03/obama/index.html

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1289/global-attitudes-survey-2009-obama-lifts-america-image

http://lettersandcomments.blogspot.com/2009/06/analyzing-obamas-speech-to-muslim-world.html

I could find more, but I think you catch the drift...

3. No. They are letting inspectors back in... Obama is the president. I can recall giving George W. Bush COMPLETE credit and major kudos when, early in HIS presidency, Saddam agreed to let weapons inspectors back in. Maybe you might be as graceful ;)

4. I can remember NO president who ever said that he wanted a world free of all nuclear weapons

4a. Apparently, the Nobel Prize committee considers global warming a bigger threat than you do and therefore considers Obama's advocacy for it noteworthy.

4b. Again... I was as surprised as you were that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I have read the citation and the press releases... I have listened to the interviews...and it is clear to me that the committee believes that Obama has singlehandedly changed the tone - and the direction - of the global discussion about peace. They feel that getting that tone change and that direction change is, itself, a significant accomplishment.

You disagree... fine. But don't let partisanship keep you from celebrating our nation's good fortune. The Nobel Peace Prize carries with it an enormous amount of prestige in the world, if not in the american conservative blogosphere. I would have been proud for my country if Bush I or Bush II or Ronnie, or Gerald Ford, or Dick Nixon or Ike had won the award... and I would not have tried to find fault with the committee for awarding my president that honor.

maineman

10-13-2009, 08:00 PM

I think you should answer my question first. Then I'll take a shot at yours.

I think the opposite. you wanna make a big deal about 1 february, then make it.... you wanna claim that nobel peace prizes are given out in October of every year for efforts in the previous calendar year, then stick with that and explain Sanchez.

but you can find the answer to your question in #190 in any case.

I'll wait for your answer.

Missileman

10-13-2009, 08:15 PM

I think the opposite. you wanna make a big deal about 1 february, then make it.... you wanna claim that nobel peace prizes are given out in October of every year for efforts in the previous calendar year, then stick with that and explain Sanchez.

but you can find the answer to your question in #190 in any case.

I'll wait for your answer.

You must be senile. I haven't said anything about February except to ask what he's done award worthy since then. I sure as hell haven't said anything about October. My arguments have dealt solely with your interpretation of the award citation.

So Iran tells us to go fuck ourselves and you call that an award worthy Obama accomplishment? Is that all you have?

maineman

10-13-2009, 08:28 PM

You must be senile. I haven't said anything about February except to ask what he's done award worthy since then. I sure as hell haven't said anything about October. My arguments have dealt solely with your interpretation of the award citation.

So Iran tells us to go fuck ourselves and you call that an award worthy Obama accomplishment? Is that all you have?

you don't need to SAY anything about October. It is a well established fact that the prize is given out in October. Are you in agreement with me that the nobel committee has every right to consider efforts on the part of candidates right up until the date the award is announced?

Or are you suggesting, as I thought you had, that the award is given for efforts during the previous calendar year?

And as I said in #190, it is clear to me that the awards committee believes that Obama has singlehandedly changed the tone - and the direction - of the global discussion about peace during the 365 days preceding their announcement. They feel that getting that tone change and that direction change is, itself, a significant accomplishment.

manu1959

10-13-2009, 09:54 PM

mortenson built 130 schools.

Obama has changed the dialog for peace worldwide.

Obama has gotten Russia to back strong sanctions against Iran.

Obama has singlehandedly stemmed the tide of muslim hatred for America.

The world now sees America as the guys in white hats again and they see us as a force for peace, for disarmament, for reversing climate change...

but mortenson built 130 schools.

the Nobel Committee obviously saw things differently than you do.

that is no big surprise.

russia changed their mind...soldiers are still beining killed by muslims in afganistan....

next up.....

the heisman trophy.....as obama watches too games and explains them in a press conference....and latter that day....an oscar....as he watched michael moores and algores propagand films.....

yes talk is better than action.....

ask not what your country can do for your for they can only talk about it.....

red states rule

10-13-2009, 11:56 PM

and, as I said, and as the Sanchez award clearly indicates, the Nobel Prize Committee considers the previous year to be the previous 365 days prior to the awarding of the prize. Now if you can't show the grace to simply admit that you were DEAD wrong and that you don't have a freakin' CLUE what previous year actually means when it comes to the Nobel Prize, then I guess we're all done, sister.

And I would be proud of ANY American who the Nobel Prize Committee thought ought to receive the Peace Prize, or any other Prize, for that matter. That is what differentiates us. Winning the Nobel Prize is GOOD for our country...whether it is the Peace Prize or the Prize for Economics or the Prize for for Chemistry or the Prize for Physics or the Prize for Literature. Having Americans win Nobel Prizes OUGHT to make REAL Americans happy...but clearly, to traitorous party first partisan hacks like you who love your ideology more than you do you country, that is not the case.

Go read up on your Rush talking points for tomorrow and quit trying to convince me that you are anything but a hack who can't admit when you are wrong.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D-LZxhXlNXY/SX85K8se4cI/AAAAAAAAIr8/Fdhi1wWRRVQ/s400/funny-pictures.jpg

Abbey Marie

10-14-2009, 12:21 AM

red states rule

10-14-2009, 04:48 AM

Our daughter has been to a lecture by Greg Mortensen, and both she and my husband have read his book. This man is both very brave, and a visionary, and does what he does solely to help those in need; not to further a political career and gain power for himself. The Nobel was stolen from him by Obama sycophants. Yet another institution subverted.

Ah, now you incur the wrath of Pastor Virgil

How dare you uteer how someone was more worthy. More loved. More deserving then Pres Obama.
The man who will lead the world into peace and prosperity mearly by talking about it

You racist political hack!!!!!

maineman

10-14-2009, 06:16 AM

Our daughter has been to a lecture by Greg Mortensen, and both she and my husband have read his book. This man is both very brave, and a visionary, and does what he does solely to help those in need; not to further a political career and gain power for himself. The Nobel was stolen from him by Obama sycophants. Yet another institution subverted.

Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

red states rule

10-14-2009, 06:20 AM

Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

So jetting across Europe, talking about how great you are while you put down your own country is what is takes to win the Nobel prize

What is next from these left wing nuts?

Giving it to Ahmadinejad for saying the Holocaust did not happen

maineman

10-14-2009, 06:26 AM

red states rule

10-14-2009, 06:29 AM

It is sad to see someone like you, red, who hates Obama SO much that you cannot see your way clear to being proud of OUR president being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

party over country for you 24/7.

domestic enemy.

bang

Virgil shows his support for Dems no matter how badly they are screwing over the natrion

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/g/guy_cheerleader-12788.jpg

glockmail

10-14-2009, 08:17 AM

...
4. I can remember NO president who ever said that he wanted a world free of all nuclear weapons.....

What would you say if a Republican President said this? Would you support him?

red states rule

10-14-2009, 08:21 AM

I guess Virgil does not read the Washington Times or pays attention to what Obama says

Sunday, September 27, 2009
Obama: Nuclear Weapons-Free World

The Washington Times editorial, "Obama's Nuclear-Free Fantasy," highlights just how wrong Obama can be on an extremely critical national security matter.

When it comes to the nuclear-weapons issue, President Obama wants to be a global community organizer. However, what we really need are some tough beat cops with a mandate to clean up the neighborhood.

On Thursday, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution drafted by the United States that calls upon, urges, encourages, but does not require U.N. member states to take various actions to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama chaired the meeting and pressed the vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world that he had introduced in April. In the practical world of counterproliferation, the president is making little progress in dissuading Iran from building nuclear weapons, has rewarded serial proliferator North Korea with bilateral negotiations and is silent on Venezuela's announced intention to start a nuclear program.

The president's "no nukes" stance makes a nice bumper sticker, but achieving it will take more than feel-good rhetoric. French President Nicolas Sarkozy objected to the fact that the Security Council resolution did not mention Iran and North Korea, currently the two greatest problem states. "We live in a real world," Mr. Sarkozy said, "not a virtual world." But Mr. Obama said he did not want to single out any particular country. After all, we might offend them. It says something when France demonstrates a stronger international leadership role than the United States and well illustrates the style-over-substance approach of the Obama administration. Mr. Sarkozy wants results; Mr. Obama seeks applause.

The premise that a nuclear-weapons-free world would be safer is highly questionable. In the right hands, nuclear weapons play an important deterrence role. The problem is that they increasingly are being obtained by countries ruled by left-wing dictators and other unsavory types who either cannot be deterred or do not want to be. These bad actors understand that they can harness deterrence to their benefit. The United States is unlikely to risk concerted action against a country with a demonstrated nuclear-weapons capability and nothing to lose. Countries such as Iran and Venezuela see North Korea as a positive inspiration - an extremely poor country with about the same per capita gross domestic product as Chad but treated as a major player in world affairs primarily because of its atomic program. We shudder to imagine how much more powerful Tehran or Caracas would be with the same capabilities.

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-nuclear-weapons-free-world.html

maineman

10-14-2009, 08:43 AM

I guess Virgil does not read the Washington Times no shit.

My guess is redstatesdrool doesn't read Mother Jones either!:lol:

red states rule

10-14-2009, 08:46 AM

no shit.

My guess is redstatesdrool doesn't read Mother Jones either!:lol:

So ignore the fact you were proven wrong AGAIN, and as usual you have serious trouble digesting another plate of crow :laugh2:

maineman

10-14-2009, 08:57 AM

So ignore the fact you were proven wrong

again... washington times editorials are not "facts" and do not prove me wrong in the least.

By the way, are you still trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize Committee was restricted to only looking at acheivements of the nominees that were completed prior to 1 February 2009?

red states rule

10-14-2009, 08:59 AM

again... washington times editorials are not "facts" and do not prove me wrong in the least.

By the way, are you still trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize Committee was restricted to only looking at acheivements of the nominees that were completed prior to 1 February 2009?

Yea the same way you did not "see" anything in the various Obamacare bil that Obamacre does not start in 2013 :laugh2:

From the link

Mr. Obama chaired the meeting and pressed the vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world that he had introduced in April. In the practical world of counterproliferation, the president is making little progress in dissuading Iran from building nuclear weapons, has rewarded serial proliferator North Korea with bilateral negotiations and is silent on Venezuela's announced intention to start a nuclear program.

maineman

10-14-2009, 09:19 AM

Yea the same way you did not "see" anything in the various Obamacare bil that Obamacre does not start in 2013 :laugh2:

From the link

Mr. Obama chaired the meeting and pressed the vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world that he had introduced in April. In the practical world of counterproliferation, the president is making little progress in dissuading Iran from building nuclear weapons, has rewarded serial proliferator North Korea with bilateral negotiations and is silent on Venezuela's announced intention to start a nuclear program.

I would disagree with the OPINIONS that the Washington Times editorial writere expressed. I think he has made great progress with Iran... they have agreed to hold talks, they have agreed to allow inspectors back into their country.

Re: NKorea, I do not see holding bilateral talks with anyone as a bad thing. I'm sorry.

And if Hugo were really serious about starting a nuclear program, Obama would seriously consider it, I'm sure.

Again...unlike you, I do NOT take the word of editorial writers as factual truths.

now... are you going to answer MY question or not?

Here: let me post it to you again:

are you still trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize Committee was restricted to only looking at acheivements of the nominees that were completed prior to 1 February 2009?

glockmail

10-14-2009, 09:21 AM

[@ Maineman: What would you say if a Republican President said this? Would you support him?

Crickets chirping.

red states rule

10-14-2009, 09:24 AM

I would disagree with the OPINIONS that the Washington Times editorial writere expressed. I think he has made great progress with Iran... they have agreed to hold talks, they have agreed to allow inspectors back into their country.

Re: NKorea, I do not see holding bilateral talks with anyone as a bad thing. I'm sorry.

And if Hugo were really serious about starting a nuclear program, Obama would seriously consider it, I'm sure.

Again...unlike you, I do NOT take the word of editorial writers as factual truths.

now... are you going to answer MY question or not?

Here: let me post it to you again:

are you still trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize Committee was restricted to only looking at acheivements of the nominees that were completed prior to 1 February 2009?

A direct quote from Obama

snip

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.

First, the United States will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.

To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: as long as these weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies - including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.

http://prague.usembassy.gov/obama.html

Still think it is an OPINION Virgil?

maineman

10-14-2009, 09:33 AM

A direct quote from Obama

snip

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.

First, the United States will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.

To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: as long as these weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies - including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.

http://prague.usembassy.gov/obama.html

Still think it is an OPINION Virgil?

Obama's words are his words, and I agree with every single word of his statement. The Washington Times editorial writer wrote his OPINION as to what he thought the impact of those words would be. I disagree with him...

now... again... as to the thread topic... Let me ask you to answer this simple question:

are you still trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize Committee was restricted to only looking at acheivements of the nominees that were completed prior to 1 February 2009?

you see... I always try to reply to your posts in their entirely. You, on the other hand, only chose to pick those aspects of my posts that suit YOU to reply to....so... answer the question in RED and we'll proceed.

red states rule

10-14-2009, 09:36 AM

Obama's words are his words, and I agree with every single word of his statement. The Washington Times editorial writer wrote his OPINION as to what he thought the impact of those words would be. I disagree with him...

now... again... as to the thread topic... Let me ask you to answer this simple question:

are you still trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize Committee was restricted to only looking at acheivements of the nominees that were completed prior to 1 February 2009?

you see... I always try to reply to your posts in their entirely. You, on the other hand, only chose to pick those aspects of my posts that suit YOU to reply to....so... answer the question in RED and we'll proceed.

Originally Posted by maineman
...
4. I can remember NO president who ever said that he wanted a world free of all nuclear weapons.....

Like I said Virgil you do not pay any attention to what Obama says - you just wave the pom poms for him like a good little liberal

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/funny-pictures-cat-chess-pawnd.jpg

glockmail

10-14-2009, 09:49 AM

....

4. I can remember NO president who ever said that he wanted a world free of all nuclear weapons....

What would you say if a Republican President said this? Would you support him?

Crickets still chirping.

maineman

10-14-2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by maineman
...
4. I can remember NO president who ever said that he wanted a world free of all nuclear weapons.....

Like I said Virgil you do not pay any attention to what Obama says - you just wave the pom poms for him like a good little liberal

you misunderstood me. I am fully aware that Obama has called for a nuclear free world... I applaud that. I do not remember any president before Obama that ever said such a thing... and it is clear that the Nobel Prize Committee thought it was significant as well.

Now... quit being a coward and answer this question:

are you still trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize Committee was restricted to only looking at acheivements of the nominees that were completed prior to 1 February 2009?

red states rule

10-14-2009, 09:56 AM

maineman

10-14-2009, 10:03 AM

That is not what you posted in post #190

No misunderstanding at all Virgil :laugh2:

yes. you do misunderstand me. Post 190 was a listing of the things that I thought distinquished Obama and why the Nobel Prize Committee picked him. The committee mentions his commitment to a nuclear free world... and that is unique in that no other president, to the best of my knowledge, has ever called for a planet free of all nuclear weapons.

Now... would you please address my question:

are you still trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize Committee was restricted to only looking at acheivements of the nominees that were completed prior to 1 February 2009?

glockmail

10-14-2009, 10:24 AM

Virgil's yapping away with six more posts and crickets are still chirping. :lame2:

maineman

10-14-2009, 02:59 PM

simple question red.... why not take a stab at actually answering it?

glockmail

10-14-2009, 03:18 PM

Same for you maineman- answer my question. :poke:

Jeff

10-14-2009, 03:48 PM

you misunderstood me. I am fully aware that Obama has called for a nuclear free world... I applaud that. I do not remember any president before Obama that ever said such a thing... and it is clear that the Nobel Prize Committee thought it was significant as well.

Now... quit being a coward and answer this question:

are you still trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize Committee was restricted to only looking at acheivements of the nominees that were completed prior to 1 February 2009?

Damn my 7 year old son said he wanted a nuclear free world could ya call the Nobel Prize Committee I think they owe him a award , and by the way that was when he was in first grade, they talked about it is class, seems he is as smart as the messiah :laugh2:

Virgil your argument gets more ridiculous by the minute :eek:

Try getting with reality

maineman

10-14-2009, 03:58 PM

Damn my 7 year old son said he wanted a nuclear free world could ya call the Nobel Prize Committee I think they owe him a award , and by the way that was when he was in first grade, they talked about it is class, seems he is as smart as the messiah :laugh2:

Virgil your argument gets more ridiculous by the minute :eek:

Try getting with reality

why can't people who claim to be patriotic Americans react with pride when their president receives a prestigious award?

Could it be that their patriotism pales in comparison to their shameless partisan hackery?

methinks so.

folks in the military take an oath to defend the country from such domestic enemies.

and just a thought: you probably shouldn't bring your children into the discussion if you don't want them to become legitimate targets...

you know jeff.... like the way you have insulted MY son.

turn about will be fair play.

Jeff

10-14-2009, 04:04 PM

why can't people who claim to be patriotic Americans react with pride when their president receives a prestigious award?

Could it be that their patriotism pales in comparison to their shameless partisan hackery?

methinks so.

folks in the military take an oath to defend the country from such domestic enemies.

and just a thought: you probably shouldn't bring your children into the discussion if you don't want them to become legitimate targets...

you know jeff.... like the way you have insulted MY son.

turn about will be fair play.

Fuck with my kids you fuckin punk and you wont worry no more about having to kiss Jim's ass ever again, know report this post, PUSSY, but this is not a threat it is a promise!!!!

Show me where I fucked with anything related to you, all I have ever said was I pitty them, I am not one here that will allow your pedophile fantasies to include my kids, what I posted was the truth, sorry if your messiah has the intelligence of a first grader

Jeff

10-14-2009, 04:08 PM

darin

10-14-2009, 04:26 PM

this thread has run its course.

If any of us threaten the lives, livelihood, or security of any other member they'll lose the privilege of participating in this forum.

darin

10-14-2009, 04:28 PM

why can't people who claim to be patriotic Americans react with pride when their president receives a prestigious award?

Could it be that their patriotism pales in comparison to their shameless partisan hackery?

methinks so.

folks in the military take an oath to defend the country from such domestic enemies.

and just a thought: you probably shouldn't bring your children into the discussion if you don't want them to become legitimate targets...

you know jeff.... like the way you have insulted MY son.

turn about will be fair play.

Look mutherfucker - if you go after his kid in ANY capacity after he made such a SIMPLE reference to his child, I swear by all that's holy (I know you know NOTHING of holiness, you hypocritical bastard) I'll do whatever I can to ban you forever.

Kathianne

10-14-2009, 06:03 PM

yes. you do misunderstand me. Post 190 was a listing of the things that I thought distinquished Obama and why the Nobel Prize Committee picked him. The committee mentions his commitment to a nuclear free world... and that is unique in that no other president, to the best of my knowledge, has ever called for a planet free of all nuclear weapons.

Now... would you please address my question:

are you still trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize Committee was restricted to only looking at acheivements of the nominees that were completed prior to 1 February 2009?

Posting here, because I can. Virgil, you're wrong, he wasn't the first:

http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=388940#post388940

I propose that our governments make a major effort to see if we can make progress in three broad problem areas. First, we need to find ways to reduce, and eventually to eliminate, the threat and use of force in solving international disputes.

The world has witnessed more than 100 major conflicts since the end of World War II. Today there are armed conflicts in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Central America, and Africa. In other regions, independent nations are confronted by heavily armed neighbors seeking to dominate by threatening attack or subversion. Most of these conflicts have their origins in local problems, but many have been exploited by the Soviet Union and its surrogates. And, of course, Afghanistan has suffered an outright Soviet invasion.

Fueling regional conflicts and exporting violence only exacerbate local tensions, increase suffering, and make solutions to real social and economic problems more difficult. Further, such activity carries with it the risk of larger confrontations. Would it not be better and safer if we could work together to assist people in areas of conflict in finding peaceful solutions to their problems? That should be our mutual goal.

But we must recognize that the gap in American and Soviet perceptions and policy is so great that our immediate objective must be more modest. As a first step, our governments should jointly examine concrete actions that we both can take to reduce the risk of U.S.-Soviet confrontation in these areas. And if we succeed, we should be able to move beyond this immediate objective.

Our second task should be to find ways to reduce the vast stockpiles of armaments in the world. It's tragic to see the world's developing nations spending more than $150 billion a year on armed forces -- some 20 percent of their national budgets. We must find ways to reverse the vicious cycle of threat and response which drives arms races everywhere it occurs.

With regard to nuclear weapons, the simple truth is America's total nuclear stockpile has declined. Today we have far fewer nuclear weapons than we had 20 years ago, and in terms of its total destructive power, our nuclear stockpile is at the lowest level in 25 years.

Just 3 months ago, we and our allies agreed to withdraw 1,400 nuclear weapons from Western Europe. This comes after the withdrawal of 1,000 nuclear weapons from Europe 3 years ago. Even if all our planned intermediate-range missiles have to be deployed in Europe over the next 5 years -- and we hope this will not be necessary -- we will have eliminated five existing nuclear weapons for each new weapon deployed.

But this is not enough. We must accelerate our efforts to reach agreements that will greatly reduce nuclear arsenals, provide greater stability, and build confidence.

Our third task is to establish a better working relationship with each other, one marked by greater cooperation and understanding. Cooperation and understanding are built on deeds, not words. Complying with agreements helps; violating them hurts. Respecting the rights of individual citizens bolsters the relationship; denying these rights harms it. Expanding contacts across borders and permitting a free exchange or interchange of information and ideas increase confidence; sealing off one's people from the rest of the world reduces it. Peaceful trade helps, while organized theft of industrial secrets certainly hurts.

Cooperation and understanding are especially important to arms control. In recent years we've had serious concerns about Soviet compliance with agreements and treaties. Compliance is important because we seek truly effective arms control. However, there's been mounting evidence that provisions of agreements have been violated and that advantage has been taken of ambiguities in our agreements.

In response to a congressional request, a report on this will be submitted in the next few days. It is clear that we cannot simply assume that agreements negotiated will be fulfilled. We must take the Soviet compliance record into account, both in the development of our defense program and in our approach to arms control.

In our discussions with the Soviet Union, we will work to remove the obstacles which threaten to undermine existing agreements and a broader arms control process. Examples I've cited illustrate why our relationship with the Soviet Union is not what it should be. We have a long way to go, but we're determined to try and try again. We may have to start in small ways, but start we must.

In working on these tasks, our approach is based on three guiding principles -- realism, strength, and dialog. Realism means we must start with a clear-eyed understanding of the world we live in. We must recognize that we are in a long-term competition with a government that does not share our notions of individual liberties at home and peaceful change abroad. We must be frank in acknowledging our differences and unafraid to promote our values.

Strength is essential to negotiate successfully and protect our interests. If we're weak, we can do neither. Strength is more than military power. Economic strength is crucial, and America's economy is leading the world into recovery. Equally important is our strength of spirit and unity among our people at home and with our allies abroad. We're stronger in all these areas than we were 3 years ago. Our strength is necessary to deter war and to facilitate negotiated solutions. Soviet leaders know it makes sense to compromise only if they can get something in return. Well, America can now offer something in return.

Strength and dialogue go hand in hand, and we're determined to deal with our differences peacefully through negotiations. We're prepared to discuss the problems that divide us and to work for practical, fair solutions on the basis of mutual compromise. We will never retreat from negotiations.

I have openly expressed my view of the Soviet system. I don't know why this should come as a surprise to Soviet leaders who've never shied from expressing their view of our system. But this doesn't mean that we can't deal with each other. We don't refuse to talk when the Soviets call us imperialist aggressors and worse, or because they cling to the fantasy of a Communist triumph over democracy. The fact that neither of us likes the other system is no reason to refuse to talk. Living in this nuclear age makes it imperative that we do talk. Our commitment to dialog is firm and unshakable, but we insist that our negotiations deal with real problems, not atmospherics.

In our approach to negotiations, reducing the risk of war, and especially nuclear war, is priority number one. A nuclear conflict could well be mankind's last. And that is why I proposed over 2 years ago the zero option for intermediate-range missiles. Our aim was and continues to be to eliminate an entire class of nuclear arms. Indeed, I support a zero option for all nuclear arms. As I've said before, my dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.....