Can anybody name someone more worthy than Barack Obama...

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:31 am

... to receive the Nobel Peace Prize? And spare me the "my dog is more worthy" or "the crusty brown stain on my ass crack is more worthy" takes. Seriously, is there someone who legitimately got hosed out of 1.4 million dollars and worldwide fame? Or is the anti-Obama hysteria the vapid rantings of the usual ignorant fucksticks.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:34 am

Absolutely not.

The NPP is a bad fucking joke, giving it to him is quite fitting.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:49 am

If you want to go down this path, Bri, of course I can name MANY people.

My son, for one.

He's in his 2nd tour in Iraq and is actually DOING things, and risking his life, to bring PEACE to the people living there.

He deserves a Peace Prize a HELLUVA lot more than a guy who got elected U.S. president on the "strength" of a short ... nothing ... senate career, a smile, a teleprompter, smooth double-talk, a shit republican opponent, and a highly ignorant populace.

He hasn't done jack fucking shit to bring "peace," nor will he, and he's very much in the process of continuation of the foreign policy of the guy who held office before him.

B.O.'s not even doing a very good job of keeping peace within his own country.

Of course the tea parties haven't really been happening, seeing as the MSM doesn't talk about them.

ADAM · Post by **ADAM** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:57 am

I stared at the screen for a long long time .....

All I came up with is .........Huh? Wha? .....and my personal fav........ "For what"?

Fuking commie pinko hippies

Terry in Crapchester · Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:39 am

Fwiw, some of the other leading candidates for this year's Nobel Peace Prize are mentioned here. I would submit, at least at this juncture, that all of them have a more complete body of work in that regard than does Obama.

And btw, . . .

poptart wrote:Of course the tea parties haven't really been happening, seeing as the MSM doesn't talk about them.

I realize you're in Korea and whatnot, but if this is true, there must be at least two MSM's. The one I pay (limited) attention to seems to be talking about precious little else.

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:36 pm

obama won the prize the same way he won the election..."Just because."

World leadership looks more like the NFL owner's group every day.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:49 pm

So, the closest we have is Terry with the vague generalization that some folks in a link he provided have a "more complete" record. My assumption is that they have "more experience" because when I look at the causes they are working on, not a one of them is even remotely close to fruition.

Is it possible to make an argument FOR somebody and not just AGAINST Obama?

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:02 pm

I would have given it to this bitch...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sima_Samar

Obama doesnt even think he deserves it. So I guess you can add Obama's name to the "anti-Obama hysteria the vapid rantings of the usual ignorant fucksticks" crowd.

Can you state a reason why he deserves it?

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:28 pm

Norwegian Socialists control the committee. I see them working.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:45 pm

Mr T wrote:I would have given it to this bitch...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sima_Samar

Obama doesnt even think he deserves it. So I guess you can add Obama's name to the "anti-Obama hysteria the vapid rantings of the usual ignorant fucksticks" crowd.

Can you state a reason why he deserves it?

Nice try Mr. T in KC. Samar was on the list Terry linked to. Can you name one single success of her organization? Can you name one personal success she has had that contributes to world peace?

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:58 pm

come on Bri--can't you see the corner where you are painting yourself ??
Those on that list at least have been "at it" (working for peaceful solutions to specific problems) a hell of a lot longer than your pal Barry. If the award was given as a boost to the winner (as it has been implied) ---it would have been much more realistic to have given it to someone else. The least they could have done was to have no award for 2009---given the shitty condition in which the world finds itself.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:59 pm

BSmack wrote:
Mr T wrote:I would have given it to this bitch...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sima_Samar

Obama doesnt even think he deserves it. So I guess you can add Obama's name to the "anti-Obama hysteria the vapid rantings of the usual ignorant fucksticks" crowd.

Can you state a reason why he deserves it?
Nice try Mr. T in KC. Samar was on the list Terry linked to. Can you name one single success of her organization? Can you name one personal success she has had that contributes to world peace?

Since you didnt answer my question, I will take it that you dont even have a reason why he deserves it.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:15 pm

According to Bob Heinlein, Obama's the perfect choice...

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
-Robert A. Heinlein

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:18 pm

Mr T wrote:
BSmack wrote:Nice try Mr. T in KC. Samar was on the list Terry linked to. Can you name one single success of her organization? Can you name one personal success she has had that contributes to world peace?
Since you didnt answer my question, I will take it that you dont even have a reason why he deserves it.

I simply asked you to put forth a reasoned argument as to why Samar deserves the prize. Why can't you do that?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:18 pm

No Laughing Matter

By MARK STEYN

Posted 10/09/2009 04:18 PM ET

The most popular headline at the Real Clear Politics website the other day was: “Is Obama Becoming A Joke?” With brilliant comedic timing, the very next morning the Norwegians gave him the Nobel Peace Prize.

Up next: His stunning victory in this year’s Miss World contest. December 12th, Johannesburg. You read it here first.

For what, exactly, did he win the Nobel? As the president himself put it: “When you look at my record, it’s very clear what I have done so far. And that is nothing. Almost one year and nothing to show for it. You don’t believe me? You think I’m making it up? Take a look at this checklist.”

And up popped his record of accomplishment, reassuringly blank.

Oh, no, wait. That wasn’t the real President Obama. That was a comedian playing President Obama on “Saturday Night Live.” And, for impressionable types who find it hard to tell the difference, CNN — in a broadcast first that should surely have its own category at the Emmys — performed an in-depth “reality check” of the SNL sketch.

That’s right: They fact-checked the jokes. Seriously. “How much truth is behind all the laughs? Stand by for our reality check,” promised Wolf Blitzer, introducing his in-depth report with all the plonking earnestness so cherished by those hapless Americans stuck at Gate 73 for four hours with nothing to watch but the CNN airport channel.

Given the network’s ever more exhaustive absence of viewers among the non-flight-delayed demographic, perhaps Wolf could make it a regular series: Who was that lady I saw you with last night? That was no lady, that was my wife.

“In fact, our sources confirm, his wife is, biologically speaking, a lady. Joining us now is our Medical Correspondent Dr Sanjay Gupta. Sanjay, we all like a joke, but how much truth is behind the laughs?”

Fortunately, the Nobel Committee understands that President Obama’s accomplishments are no laughing matter. So they gave him the Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

I assumed this was a reference to his rip-roaring success in winning the Olympic Games for Rio, but as it turns out the deadline for Nobel nominations was way back on February 1st.

Obama took office on January 20th. Gosh, it’s so long ago now. What “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy” did he make in those first 12 days? Bowing to the Saudi King? Giving the British Prime Minister the Wal-Mart discount box of “Twenty Classic Movies You’ve Seen A Thousand Times?”

“Er, Barack, I’ve already seen these.” “That’s okay. They won’t work in your DVD player anyway.”

For these and other “extraordinary efforts” in “cooperation between peoples,” President Obama is now the fastest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in history. Alas, the extraordinary efforts of those first 12 days are already ancient history.

Reflecting the new harmony of US-world relations since the administration hit the “reset” button, The Times of London declared the award “preposterous” and Svenska Freds (the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society) called it “shameful.”

There’s something almost quaintly vieux chapeau about the Nobel decision, as if the hopeychangey bumper stickers were shipped surface mail to Oslo and only arrived last week. Everywhere else, they’re peeling off: The venerable lefties at Britain’s New Statesman currently have a cover story on “Barack W Bush”.

Happily, there are still a few Americans willing to stand by Mister Saturday Night. “I am shocked at the mean-spirited comments,” wrote Judi Romaine to The Times in protest at all the naysaying.

“I’m afraid I’ve registered into a very conversative (sic), fear-based world here, but I’d like to suggest the incredible notion we all create our worlds in our conversations. What are you building by maligning rather than creating discourses for workability? Bravo to Obama and others working for people, however it appears to cynics.”

If that’s the language you have to speak when you’re “working for people,” I’d rather work for a cranky mongoose. Yet to persons who can use phrases like “creating discourses for workability” with a straight face, Obama remains an heroic figure.

Like Judi Romaine, he works hard to “create our worlds in our conversations”. Why, only the other day, very conversationally, the administration floated the trial balloon that it could live with the Taliban returning to government in Afghanistan. A lot of Afghans won’t be living with it, but that’s their lookout.

This is — how to put this delicately? — something of a recalibration of Obama’s previous position. From about a year after the fall of Baghdad, Democrats adopted the line that Bush’s war in Iraq was an unnecessary distraction from the real war, the good war, the one in Afghanistan that everyone — Dems, Europeans, all the nice people — were right behind, one hundred per cent.

No one butched up for the Khyber Pass more enthusiastically than Barack Obama: “As president, I will make the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban the top priority.” (July 15, 2008)

But that was then and this is now. As the historian Robert Dallek told Obama recently, “War kills off great reform movements.” As the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne reminded the president, his supporters voted for him not to win a war but to win a victory on health care and other domestic issues.

Obama’s priorities lie not in the Hindu Kush but in America: Why squander your presidency on trying to turn an economically moribund feudal backwater into a functioning nation state when you can turn a functioning nation state into an economically moribund feudal backwater?

Gosh, given their many assertions that Afghanistan is “a war we have to win” (Obama to the VFW, August 2008), you might almost think, pace Judi Romaine, that it’s the president and water-bearers like Gunga Dionne who are the “cynics.”

In a recent speech to the Manhattan Institute, Charles Krauthammer pointed out that, in diminishing American power abroad to advance statism at home, Obama and the American people will be choosing decline.

There are legitimate questions about our war aims in Afghanistan, and about the strategy necessary to achieve them. But eight years after being toppled, the Taliban will see their return to power as a great victory over the Great Satan, and so will the angry young men from Toronto to Yorkshire to Chechnya to Indonesia who graduated from Afghanistan’s Camp Jihad during the 1990s.

And so will the rest of the world: They will understand that the modern era’s ordnungsmacht (the “order maker”) has chosen decline.

Barack Obama will have history’s most crowded trophy room, but his presidency is shaping up as a tragedy — for America and the world.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:31 pm

BSmack wrote:I simply asked you to put forth a reasoned argument as to why Samar deserves the prize. Why can't you do that?

She doesn't. She's too admirable and serious a person for the Norwegian Parliament Person Of The Year award.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:44 pm

Even the editors at NRO are down with it...

A Fitting Prize, in a Way
By the Editors

Well, that didn’t take long. But it was almost inevitable: the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama. As “the world” hated Pres. George W. Bush, “the world” loves President Obama.

What do we mean by “the world”? We mean the editors of Le Monde, Der Spiegel, and the Guardian. The faculty at Brown University. The secretariat of the United Nations. We mean Lord Malloch-Brown, not Václav Klaus. When President Bush visited Iraq for the last time, a foe of his threw a shoe at him. The shoe-thrower was taken to be “the world.” Hugo Chávez even made laughing reference to him recently at the U.N. Many Iraqis admire and appreciate President Bush. They do not count as “the world.”

Very much counting as “the world” is the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. They practically define it. Every year since 1901, the peace prize has been given by a committee of five Norwegians. They are appointed by the Norwegian parliament, the Storting. The Nobel Peace Prize always reflects the consensus of Norwegian politics. And that consensus is, in a word — a word the Norwegians might well choose — “progressive.” Others might call it left-wing.

In any case, the Nobel Peace Prize almost never disappoints the editors of Le Monde, the faculty at Brown, etc.

The committee has said, “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. In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”

That is true (at least in part). The Nobel Committee appreciates Obama for his repudiation of all things Bush. The new president has frozen out America’s allies in Eastern Europe, causing great consternation among them. He has put “daylight” between America and its No. 1 Middle Eastern ally, Israel. He kept almost mum when Iranian democrats massed in the streets to demand a more decent life — the American focus is on negotiating with the regime. He gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, the U.N. official who presided over Durban, that hate-Israel jamboree.

He yukked it up with Chávez, giving him a soul-brother handshake and calling him “mi amigo.” He went along with an invitation to Cuba to rejoin the Organization of American States — this despite that fact that the OAS is supposed to be for democracies, not police states. He had America rejoin the U.N. Human Rights Council, which, under Bush, we bowed out of: because it was dominated by such lovely regimes as the ones in Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, Syria, and Sudan; because it existed almost solely to defame Israel.

All these moves of Obama, the Nobel Committee appreciates immensely. This is an American president in their own image, the kind of president they will cheer and honor. For them, Obama is a dream president, just as Bush was a nightmare president. He is the first “post-American president,” as John Bolton and others have said. For “the world,” that is a dream president.

Our Declaration of Independence speaks of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” A decent respect is not a need for approval. Besides, who is mankind? Merely the Nobel Committee and the shoe-thrower, or Bush-loving Iraqis, too? We might ask another question: Whose approval would President Obama rather have: that of the Nobel Committee or that of the Rotary Club in Butte?

In recent years, the Nobel Committee has done everything possible to express its abhorrence of Bush and his ways. In 2001, they gave the peace prize to Kofi Annan and the U.N. The message, in part, was: “America, you’d better not respond to 9/11 by yourselves, or too aggressively.” The next year, they gave the prize to Jimmy Carter, and, here, the chairman of the committee was refreshingly candid: saying that they were honoring Carter in order to give Bush “a kick in the leg,” or, in our own parlance, a black eye. A more honorable president might have refused that award, if given for the purpose of bashing the current president.

Another black eye came in 2005, when the committee gave the award to Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency. ElBaradei has said explicitly that his goal — his only “brief,” as he has put it — is to prevent military action against Iran. Accordingly, he has repeatedly downplayed that country’s nuclear progress. And the IAEA has repeatedly looked foolish, and blind. In Beijing the other day, ElBaradei said that the number-one threat to peace in the Middle East is . . . Israel, and its nukes.

In 2007, the Nobel Committee went with Al Gore and the U.N.’s global-warming people. And now, in 2009, Obama.

This award will cause people — will cause “the world” — to say that America is back in the fold, back in the good graces of “the world.” After a season apart, under the cowboy Bush, America is a citizen of “the world” once again. In the Nobel Committee sense of “the world,” we are.

The committee would never have given the award to Ronald Reagan, much as he did for peace, and much as Mrs. Reagan may have wanted it for him. (The committee did award Gorbachev, however.) Years ago, National Review made the editorial quip that the Nobel Peace Prize, every year, should be given to the Defense Department: because the American military was the world’s foremost guarantor of peace.

A few days ago, there was a rumor that Harry Wu, the anti-Communist dissident from China, would win the peace prize. That was terribly unlikely. Would the committee ever honor Oscar Biscet, the Afro-Cuban political prisoner who is a symbol of hope, defiance, and decency in that country? A virtual impossibility.

President Bush gave a Medal of Freedom to Biscet (in absentia, of course); Obama gave one to Mary Robinson. That neatly illustrates the difference between those two presidents, and between types who win the Nobel prize and those who don’t.

Alfred Nobel, a great man, wanted his prize to go to “champions of peace,” men and women who genuinely contributed to peace in the world. He deplored the “absurd and futile efforts of windbags who are capable of thwarting the best of aims.” Can Barack Obama really make a contribution to peace, the way the Reagans of the world genuinely do? Reagan got no peace prize, but he made a huge positive difference, and the world, along with “the world,” should know that Oslo doesn’t always know best.

atomicdad · Post by **atomicdad** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:53 pm

Here's an editorial from my morning fishwrap that put forth an interesting spin on this:

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/ ... ?uniontrib

A Nobel ploy?
Unlikely prize may be meant to sway Obama

2:00 a.m. October 10, 2009

President Obama has lived a charmed life, and now we can add a new accomplishment to the list: Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

Even Obama himself seemed stunned and unsure how to respond. That's understandable. These awards are typically given to acknowledge some grand achievement in pursuit of world peace, and Obama hasn't racked up any of those since taking office nine months ago. But he has given some provocative speeches, including a recent address at the United Nations in which he announced his desire to undo the Bush doctrine and retreat from the idea of the United States as the world's sole indispensable nation.

That did it. The Nobel committee was clearly impressed by Obama's rebuttal of George W. Bush, and hopeful that a new day has dawned in America. This was obviously a slap at the Bush years.

Committee members apparently missed that Obama has continued to fight two wars started by his predecessor, increased the number of troops in Afghanistan and might yet send more, and maintained many of the same anti-terror policies for which the Bush administration was criticized around the world.

Or maybe all the committee cared about was trying to influence where the United States goes from here on its foreign policy, such as its confrontation with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Clearly, there are many people around the world who don't relish the possibility of a showdown over the Iranian nuclear program. Perhaps some of them live in Oslo.

If Obama was adverse to a military confrontation before winning the Nobel Peace Prize, perhaps the presumption was he would become even more reluctant once he was chosen as the symbol of world peace. So this could be a cynical ploy to manipulate the leader of the free world into soft-pedaling relations with Iran and other nations that threaten international security.

If it is, we hope it doesn't work.

Seems to me that this is as plausible as any other reasons. As the editors conclude, I hope it doesn't work.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:49 pm

Of course not everybody agrees...

Friday, October 09, 2009

On Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, was a staunch critic of the Bush White House. Yet she has also spent decades working tirelessly on behalf of women and vulnerable minorities, all while leading a pretty modest life as a working mother. Though I can't say I see eye to eye with the Nobel Peace Prize Committee on much, I do think she was an excellent choice. Now, of course, the Committee has chosen President Barack Obama.

One thing I find extraordinary about this decision is that the president was chosen ahead of two Chinese dissidents, a Congolese doctor who has dedicated his life to aiding victims of sexual assault, an Afghan activist who, like Ebadi, has fought to defend the rights of women, and many other worthy nominees. More remarkably still, the president recently decided against meeting the Dalai Lama in deference to Chinese sensibilities. Then there is the president's outreach to the State Peace and Development Council. Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's fearless opposition leader, who has faced down political thuggery of the worst kind from racial chauvinists devoted to his destruction, said the following in an interview with Christopher Rhoads of The Wall Street Journal.

"With constructive engagement...what you find is countries going for construction projects and no engagement," said Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, in an interview in New York on Thursday. Mr. Anwar said "constructive intervention" was required.

Mr. Anwar said the U.S. is still the only country that can stand up to many countries on issues such as the fate of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Myanmar opposition leader and Nobel laureate who has been under house arrest for much of the past two decades.
There is an upside to all of this: perhaps the president will decide that he is obligated to defend the interests of fellow Nobel Peace Laureates, given that they belong to the same club. That will mean defending the rights of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Dalai Lama and Shirin Ebadi. :twisted: :twisted:

Seen through that lens, perhaps the president will decide that the Prize is more trouble than it's worth ...

P.S. Roger Bate has identified a very worthy candidate for the Prize.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:20 pm

BSmack wrote:
Mr T wrote:
BSmack wrote:Nice try Mr. T in KC. Samar was on the list Terry linked to. Can you name one single success of her organization? Can you name one personal success she has had that contributes to world peace?
Since you didnt answer my question, I will take it that you dont even have a reason why he deserves it.
I simply asked you to put forth a reasoned argument as to why Samar deserves the prize. Why can't you do that?

Funny you calling me from KC but you are dodging from the start...

Can you state a reason why he deserves it?

You can't. Its alright. You along with Obama and myself are all in the same group. We dont know why the fuck he got it. Doesnt bother me.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:12 pm

The families that Obama eviscerated with Predator drone strikes are at peace.

No more worrying about daily nuisances like eating, breathing, etc...

He is a bringer of peace. A man of peace.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:31 pm

Martyred wrote:The families that Obama eviscerated with Predator drone strikes are at peace.

No more worrying about daily nuisances like eating, breathing, etc...

He is a bringer of peace. A man of peace.

Looks peaceful to me.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:09 am

Toddowen wrote: We're much closer to a post-racial nation under Obama than we were under Bush.

Even though I know you're trolling here Todd, I'll bite.

No, we're not. The honeymoon is over.

If they haven't already, black folk will soon get over their euphoria of having their boy elected the HMFNIC and realize that not a damn thing has changed and they're still living off welfare in the inner city.

Then they'll go back to being the rude, bitter, sub-human class of people they know they are and continue to populate the prison system at an inordinate rate.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:49 am

I'm still down with it. It's totally in the spirit of nobel souls like Rigoberta Menchu.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:11 pm

It would appear there is not a single person who is capable of giving me a name and providing even the most rudimentary defense of that person's qualifications. About what I expected.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:20 pm

WGARA?

I don't really care who does or does not win the Nobel prize.

Watching you constantly bend over backwards trying to defend your boy from the indefensible though, now that's entertaining.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:22 pm

B, Terry's link provided you with a list of names of people who are all more worthy of the award than Obama. It doesn't matter that their efforts haven't reached fruition yet. They've still accomplished more than Obama, since nothing he's talked about yet has come to fruition either, so they're all more worthy than Obama.

They've actually done something. They've put themselves out there and helped people. He's done nothing but fly around and talk, to no effect.

Pretty cut and dried. You got your answer.

Obama got the award strictly as a kick in his pants to motivate him to do something. He didn't get it for anything he's actually done so far.

It was like MLB awarding the WS title to the Yankees merely for signing Sabathia, Texeira and Burnett, just to show the Yankees what's expected of them.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:22 pm

BSmack wrote:It would appear there is not a single person who is capable of giving me a name and providing even the most rudimentary defense of that person's qualifications. About what I expected.

Diogenes wrote:Roger Bate has identified a very worthy candidate for the Prize.

Morgan Tsvangirai could use the prize money. He deserves better than the ignominy of this worthless 'honor' though.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:30 pm

Van wrote:B, Terry's link provided you with a list of names of people who are all more worthy of the award than Obama. It doesn't matter that their efforts haven't reached fruition yet. They've still accomplished more than Obama, since nothing he's talked about yet has come to fruition either, so they're all more worthy than Obama.

Again, no accomplishments. Only a flurry of names. Just one of you ought to be able to name something one of these people has done that has actually been successful.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:31 pm

poptart wrote:If you want to go down this path, Bri, of course I can name MANY people.

My son, for one.

He's in his 2nd tour in Iraq and is actually DOING things, and risking his life, to bring PEACE to the people living there.

Nobody gives a shit about your son or Iraq.

Surge worked. Reporters went home. Mission Forgotten.

Sorry 'tart, but Iraq is yesterday's fishwrap. Your country's attention span can't comprehend the "long view".

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:35 pm

BSmack wrote: Again, no accomplishments. Only a flurry of names.

You win, Bri. Obama is victorious by default.

I just wish the Nobel Committee would hand him his cheque so he can get on with agitating for more wars.

Time is money...and he is a "man of peace" after all.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:46 pm

Van wrote: Obama got the award strictly as a kick in his pants to motivate him to do something.

To live up to the Nobel committee's expectations of him, I suppose.

I can only imagine what he was thinking when he heard the "good" news that he had just been awarded this prize. Something to the effect of...

Oh Vey... this is just fucking terrific. I've got Libs, Mods, and Cons all pulling at me in a thousand different directions and now this. Yep, this is exactly what I needed. This will now make my job a whole lot easier. Thanks a fucking million, you Norweigian cocksuckers.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:50 pm

Martyred wrote: Nobody gives a shit about your son or Iraq.

Surge worked. Reporters went home. Mission Forgotten.

Sorry 'tart, but Iraq is yesterday's fishwrap. Your country's attention span can't comprehend the "long view".

Bullshit, on about 6 different levels.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:53 pm

War Wagon wrote:
Martyred wrote: Nobody gives a shit about your son or Iraq.

Surge worked. Reporters went home. Mission Forgotten.

Sorry 'tart, but Iraq is yesterday's fishwrap. Your country's attention span can't comprehend the "long view".
Bullshit, on about 6 different levels.

Yeah. It's clogging up the nightly news and taking up way too much front page in the papers.
It's what everyone's taking about these days.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:54 pm

BSmack wrote:
Van wrote:B, Terry's link provided you with a list of names of people who are all more worthy of the award than Obama. It doesn't matter that their efforts haven't reached fruition yet. They've still accomplished more than Obama, since nothing he's talked about yet has come to fruition either, so they're all more worthy than Obama.
Again, no accomplishments. Only a flurry of names. Just one of you ought to be able to name something one of these people has done that has actually been successful.

How do you figure there are no accomplishments? The works they've been doing are accomplishments. Anybody they ever helped, those were successes.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:58 pm

Van wrote: How do you figure there are no accomplishments? The works they've been doing are accomplishments. Anybody they ever helped, those were successes.

But...

...Obamurder might do something in the near future...possibly...we think...

Hope you are not homeless and jobless when Obamisanthrope lets loose another cruise missile stri....errr..."humanitarian mission" in a country he thinks is important enough to have your kids splash their intestines all over.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:15 pm

Martyred wrote: It's what everyone's taking about these days.

I personally know many folks who have family who have been deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan, are there now, or will soon be sent.

So yeah, it gets talked about often. Maybe not by the MSM so much anymore, but to the people who matter, it's still a big topic.

And much like 'tart, they are all proud to have a family member serve and not one of them is bitching that we shouldn't be there in the first place, even those who've made the ultimate sacrifice.

So take your smarmy little rock throwing bullshit takes and shove 'em.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:52 pm

War Wagon wrote:
And much like 'tart, they are all proud to have a family member serve and not one of them is bitching that we shouldn't be there in the first place, even those who've made the ultimate sacrifice.

They might change their mind when Junior comes home in a juice box.

War Wagon wrote: So take your smarmy little rock throwing bullshit takes and shove 'em.

Fuck you.

How sad that you're still humping a cause that even the people that started it don't give a shit about any more.
You're a day late and a dollar short for any "RACK THE TROOPS!" hysteria.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:14 pm

l to r: Nobel Prize, You-Know-Who, B-Monica

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:20 am

Cuda wrote:
l to r: Nobel Prize, You-Know-Who, B-Monica

B_$15 isn't even that masculine.