# Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize



## adrian07 (Aug 3, 2007)

Is it now been given to people who just aspire to do things? Well, Miss Universe contestants always 'aspire' to achieve world peace, so maybe they should share next year's award. 

Other people could have used the money and protection this award gives. There are freedom fighters in China's and Iran's prisons who are more deserving, and Morgan Tsvangirai has shed a lot of blood and even lost his wife in a questionable accident for peace.

This is all I have to say to them and their award:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

adrian07 said:


> Is it now been given to people who just aspire to do things? Well, Miss Universe contestants always 'aspire' to achieve world peace, so maybe they should share next year's award.
> 
> Other people could have used the money and protection this award gives. There are freedom fighters in China's and Iran's prisons who are more deserving, and Morgan Tsvangirai has shed a lot of blood and even lost his wife in a questionable accident for peace.
> 
> This is all I have to say to them and their award:


^+1. They've cheapened the award.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Perhaps it is a case in which Obama's intent may be pure, while his approach, although aggressive, is flawed. Clumsy though he might appear, Obama is consistent in his attempt to rebuild diplomatic bridges that have been sorely neglected for some time! In this instance, kudos to our President.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

adrian07 said:


> This is all I have to say to them and their award:


This is all I have to say to narrow minded, cronies that would never give him an ounce of credit - no matter what he did ic12337:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It is quite an achievement and something to be proud of.

I hope he keeps it in perspective and remembers that our nation's interest counts for something. 

However, given how few people get that honor, it is a considerable accomplishment.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> This is all I have to say to narrow minded, cronies that would never give him an ounce of credit - no matter what he did ic12337:


I am perfectly happy to give anyone credit for their accomplishments, but the nomination deadline was two weeks after he became president. Can you honestly point to any accomplishments in those first two weeks that qualify him for what was one of the highest honors that can be bestowed?

Maybe he will do something to earn the award, but if so, it was given based on potential, not actual accomplishment. I have to agree with those who say this cheapens the Nobel Peace Prize, and if you look around you can find that opinion shared by some of the former winners of the prize.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> However, given how few people get that honor, it is a considerable accomplishment.


An award in itself is not an accomplishement.

It is supposed to be recognition.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

agnash said:


> I am perfectly happy to give anyone credit for their accomplishments, but the nomination deadline was two weeks after he became president. Can you honestly point to any accomplishments in those first two weeks that qualify him for what was one of the highest honors that can be bestowed?
> 
> Maybe he will do something to earn the award, but if so, it was given based on potential, not actual accomplishment. I have to agree with those who say this cheapens the Nobel Peace Prize, and if you look around you can find that opinion shared by some of the former winners of the prize.


 I agree that it is too soon to really judge President Obama, and this award would have been more appropriate after a few years in office (at a minimum) - but to suggest as some have that it is necessary to achieve an intended goal to receive this prize, shows a serious lack of understanding of the award, its past winners and the mission of the Nobel committee.

For those that actually care to read about it, the Nobel *Peace* Prize has nothing whatsoever in common with the Nobel Prizes for Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, or Economics.


Those are always given on the basis of long term research and discoveries and often on a lifetime body of work. The Peace Prize has most often been given (as is stated on the Nobel Prize Website)- "to encourage those who receive it to see their efforts for peace, democracy and human rights through, sometimes at critical moments."


Clearly, many see this as premature, but you cant help but admit that much of the criticism is coming from people that wouldn't say a good thing about President Obama if he cured cancer with a touch and walked on water.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> This is all I have to say to narrow minded, cronies that would never give him an ounce of credit - no matter what he did ic12337:


Absolutely true that some people will never like Obama, but to give him the award before he actually did anything _strengthens_ their hand. "He has to get awards for nothing because he can't earn them."

If I were the WH, I'd decline and ask the committee to reconsider after my Presidency - this smacks of the "I tried" trophy they give kids for soccer these days.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Asterix said:


> ^+1. They've cheapened the award.


Obama's accomplishments now begin to equal those of Yasser Arafat.

Jimmy Carter got jobbed again!


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*plus ca change...*

when henry kissinger got the nobel peace prize, the late terry southern remarked that satire was now impossible.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I wonder if he won it for closing Gitmo, for pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, for his leadership on climate change, for fixing the global economy, for passing universal healthcare, or a combination of all of the above? :devil:

Seriously, I think it's time for Obama's supporters to consider that competitors (if not outright enemies) of American superiority in the world have realized that giving Obama the world stage only advances their agenda. 

Many people (including myself) were critical of W's speaking ability, but for the lack of style his speeches advocated a consistent position that clearly communicated, if not articulated, a belief in American superiority. 

Obama's statement that he will accept on "behalf of Americans and American Values" is not distancing himself from the same rhetoric it is simply diminishing the meaning of the words. 

If putting Obama on the podium advanced the cause of America I would be all for it at every opportunity, but the track record in even the these short 9 months is that he has been weak and impotent. He is hurting America by being weak and being weakened. You have to ask yourself why people keep inviting him to speak and giving him the big podium? Do they privately enjoy this reality? Certainly, they are not blind to it, but stoicly analyze the RESULTS not the INTENTIONS of his statements as our domestic political talking-heads do.

In the interest of America, Obama should decline, and try to focus on our Economic and National Security. The Peace Prize and those who dispense it (despite it's name) continues to weaken both of these interests. Peace comes through American economic strength; which starts at home. If you want peace then you must stabilize the American Dollar and you do that by stopping the expansion of government spending which expands the deficits and debt that W created.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

I love how he basically got it for having good intentions. I'd love peace on a global scale. Hell, maybe I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize!:icon_smile_big:

This makes Jimmy Carter's decades-long, self-serving quest to the the prize look reasonable.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> I love how he basically got it for having good intentions. I'd love peace on a global scale. Hell, maybe I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize!:icon_smile_big:
> 
> This makes Jimmy Carter's decades-long, self-serving quest to the the prize look reasonable.


Yes; it's like a Miss America or Miss Universe pageant asking what are you goals if you win this crown and they all answer, "I want world peace and to end world hunger."

You make a great point about Carter. I never thought of it that way, but it does justify him. It's like some of the baseball hall of fame selections ... names witheld.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> It is quite an achievement and something to be proud of.
> 
> I hope he keeps it in perspective and remembers that our nation's interest counts for something.
> 
> However, given how few people get that honor, it is a considerable accomplishment.


+1



> Clearly, many see this as premature, but you cant help but admit that much of the criticism is coming from people that wouldn't say a good thing about President Obama if he cured cancer with a touch and walked on water.




Oh exactly, as the "touch" would actually be seen as some bad reverend's influence and the walking on water would just prove he's only full of hot air and thus able to float. But I hope they keep up the ersatz posts as few things on this forum are more amusing than the glib musings of the righteous indignitaries we have here. :icon_smile:


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

Quay said:


> +1
> 
> Oh exactly, as the "touch" would actually be seen as some bad reverend's influence and the walking on water would just prove he's only full of hot air and thus able to float. But I hope they keep up *the ersatz posts* as few things on this forum are more amusing than the glib musings of the righteous indignitaries we have here. :icon_smile:
> [/SIZE][/FONT]


I'm glad to see you have a monopoly on the truth.

In contrast, Bush could have rescued a family from a burning car, and there would have been a ton of blog posts on how Karl Rove staged it to rebuild his sagging ratings.

I'm all for President Obama accomplishing something that earns the commendation of the Nobel Committee. I seriously doubt any President could have deserved such recognition at this stage in his Presidency.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

I saw it scrolling on a billboard on the way to work and thought it was a joke.

Jimmy Carter, Yassar Arafat, Al Gore, the Nobel peace prize stopped meaning anything a long time ago.

From Ann Althouse:
Q: Why didn't Barack Obama win the Nobel prize for literature?
A: He wrote two books.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

DCLawyer68 said:


> I'm glad to see you have a monopoly on the truth....


It never takes long around here--this forum delivers! Thank you for providing a perfect demonstration of an ersatz post.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

Quay said:


> It never takes long around here--this forum delivers! Thank you for providing a perfect demonstration of an ersatz post.


Well, when you throw around big words like that, it's not an unfair characterization.

How about trying to recognize that people can have honest disagreements rather than characterizing everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush?

As P.M. Forni states in his primer on civility, "think the best" of those with whom you disagree.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

DCLawyer68 said:


> Well, when you throw around big words like that, it's not an unfair characterization.


Quite so, which is why my characterization of erzatz posts stands tall, especially when words like "monopoly" are used with glibness.



> How about trying to recognize that people can have honest disagreements rather than characterizing everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush?


A man who takes his own advice to heart is a wise man indeed.



> As P.M. Forni states in his primer on civility, "think the best" of those with whom you disagree.


Such books of sound sense should never go out of print, alas. But you see it as a primer? Indeed, it probably should be.

Really though, upon reflection, it seems you have me confused with someone else.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> The Peace Prize has most often been given (as is stated on the Nobel Prize Website)- "to encourage those who receive it to see their efforts for peace, democracy and human rights through, sometimes at critical moments."


I always suspected my bowling trophies were more validating than a Nobel Prize for Peace.

Thanks for clearing that up for me!! :teacha:


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

*Nobel, Pulitzer, etc.*

Just out of interest, what "prominent" US politicians have won/earned/received "prominent" awards?

Here's what I can compile:

Theodore Roosevelt: Nobel Peace
Elihu Root: Nobel Peace
Woodrow Wilson: Nobel Peace
Chas. Dawes: Nobel Peace
Frank Kellogg: Nobel Peace
Cordell Hull: Nobel Peace
George C. Marshall: Nobel Peace
John F. Kennedy: Pulitzer
Henry Kissinger: Nobel Peace
Jimmy Carter: Nobel Peace
Al Gore: Nobel Peace
Barack Obama: Nobel Peace

Seems like a good thing to me. Yes, an imperfect form of recognition. We don't get to vote on it or anything. Still, it lifts up that we are blessed to be a blessing to the whole world. The Nobel prizes seem to be a reflection of how the greater "world" sees things.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I wonder if he won it for closing Gitmo, for pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, for his leadership on climate change, for fixing the global economy, for passing universal healthcare, or a combination of all of the above? :devil:
> 
> Seriously, I think it's time for Obama's supporters to consider that competitors (if not outright enemies) of American superiority in the world have realized that giving Obama the world stage only advances their agenda.
> 
> ...


 So much wrong with this post, but there is no way I am going to convince K of anything, and vice versa.

The one thing I am confused about is that you mention in your opening in jest, all the things that the President has not rushed to change - but then go on to tell us that he is "weak and impotent" and should concentrate on national security. SO, I have to ask you "which is it"? 

He is essentially continuing the military plan the Bush put into place in Iraq, and is going to actually increase our presence in Afghanistan. How is taking the Bush military policy (which you compliment) and raising him one - being "weak and impotent"?

If he changed course immediately in Iraq and closed Gitmo in the first month, he would have been ripped to shreds by the right. But when he chooses to stay the course in Iraq, increase troops to Afghanistan, and close Gitmo only after a long and well designed plan - he is STILL criticized&#8230;lol.

[FONT=&quot]Yet another example that there is "nothing" President Obama could do to get credit from his detractors. 
 

[/FONT]


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I always suspected my bowling trophies were more valuable than a Nobel Prize for Peace.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up for me!! :teacha:


And to think, it only took you 108 years to figure that out


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

*Nobel Citation*

Here's what they're saying it is for:

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

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

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. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

https://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

*Of course he deserved it!*

Now wait a minute! Just wait a minute!

He did resolve that dispute between Professor Gates and that ******* policeman by having a beer with them in the Rose Garden.

That was the greatest contribution to racial reconciliation we've seen in many years.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Pr B said:


> His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are *shared by the majority* of the world's population.


My problem is, what happens when the majority stand for tyranny.

Oh, just invite them to speak at the UN!!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Beresford said:


> Now wait a minute! Just wait a minute!
> 
> He did resolve that dispute between Professor Gates and that ******* policeman by having a beer with them in the Rose Garden.
> 
> That was the greatest contribution to racial reconciliation we've seen in many years.


In a way it's having to say you're sorry.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> So much wrong with this post, but there is no way I am going to convince K of anything, and vice versa.
> 
> The one thing I am confused about is that you mention in your opening in jest, all the things that the President has not rushed to change - but then go on to tell us that he is "weak and impotent" and should concentrate on national security. SO, I have to ask you "which is it"?


What I am saying is that he announced he would change and he's tried to change those things he just hasn't been able to. He is weak and impotent.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> If he changed course immediately in Iraq and closed Gitmo in the first month, he would have been ripped to shreds by the right. But when he chooses to stay the course in Iraq, increase troops to Afghanistan, and close Gitmo only after a long and well designed plan - he is STILL criticized&#8230;lol.
> 
> Yet another example that there is "nothing" President Obama could do to get credit from his detractors.


No such design or plan exists.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

I applaud that he ordered the shutting down of Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately, the real powers at be said "No."


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> No such design or plan exists.


Again, making assumptions about things you could NOT possible know.

How could you know that President Obama didnt have plans to close Gitmo immediately and draw down in Iraq in the first 12 months - only to have those plans change during his first few Security Council briefings in the first month of his Presidency?

Answer: You Dont.

Would much rather have a President that defers to the Generals and other experts on his staff - rather than ramming his own ideas down everyone throat like the Bush/ Cheney White House did most of the time.


----------



## jourdynleigh (Feb 8, 2009)

I don't think he should have received the award just on the grounds of having good intentions and effort. There are a lot of people around the world who have good intentions but don't win the award, so what made him so special? Just because he is the president? Yes, having good intentions is one thing, but actually fulfilling those and doing what you say you are planning on doing is another thing. Maybe, just maybe after he had done what he plans on doing then the he could have possibly been considered for the award. Further into his presidency.

And another thing that gets to me is that he was only in office for 12 days before they had to send in the nominations. I'm pretty sure he didn't accomplish much within those first 2 weeks. 

Perhaps this is a good thing in a sense, now that he has received this award maybe he will see that he has to do what he was talking about. Make his intentions and efforts real and more impacting in the long run for the good of man.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Again, making assumptions about things you could NOT possible know.
> 
> How could you know that President Obama didnt have plans to close Gitmo immediately and draw down in Iraq in the first 12 months - only to have those plans change during his first few Security Council briefings in the first month of his Presidency?
> 
> ...


Actually, I do know, but I prefer not to say how I know. You are the one making assumptions.

There is no plan. This is not an assumption and it is public knowledge.

Yes; he would have been ripped to shreds by the right for closing Gitmo in a month just as he is for announcing it's closing without a plan. So what? How is that relevant? I thought you put your broad brushes away for the winter? ;-)


----------



## smallwonder (Jun 29, 2009)

I think the statement by the prize committee is pretty clear on why they made their decision. As Americans, we should be proud that our president is recognized by the world community for his vision of a better way of doing things.

As far as president Obama being impotent. Well, I think Mr "Mission Accomplished" and "we want him dead or alive", is the real weak man.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smallwonder said:


> I think the statement by the prize committee is pretty clear on why they made their decision. As Americans, we should be proud that our president is recognized by the world community for his vision of a better way of doing things.
> 
> As far as president Obama being impotent. Well, I think Mr "Mission Accomplished" and "we want him dead or alive", is the real weak man.


The Statement by the committee is very clear. It says they want him because he represents the world and the values of the world. That's not something to be proud of as an American unless the world had adopted traditional American values. They haven't. Obama knows this which is why he put out a statement that he is accepting on behalf of Americans and American values. He is weakening America which the world thinks they will like better. He should have declined.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

There are so many people out there are living in danger for peace. People all over the world are killed or live under the threat of violence in their pursuit for peace and Obama wins? I don't think politicians should win the peace prize, while so many people are out there actually giving their lives for peace. While Obama lives a life of luxury, people really perusing peace live in fear for their lives and have a hard time. How much are his suits? How much does he spend on dinner or a vacation? There is nothing wrong with that, but to win a prize for peace when so many people live hard lives deserving it.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

You might take issue with Obama's policies, but clearly the Nobel Committee made the selection. IMHO, it was props for being philosophically more aligned with their interests and philosophies. 

The literary committee gave an award to a Nicaraguan woman some years back based on her story of Contra atrocities. Subsequent independant fact-checking revealed her a liar. Didn't matter, they said-surely it happened. Maybe, maybe not-but they wanted to believe it.

Do I believe he deserved it for aspiring to things? No. But I won't diminsh the honor bestowed. Congratulations to him.


----------



## smallwonder (Jun 29, 2009)

ksinc said:


> The Statement by the committee is very clear. It says they want him because he represents the world and the values of the world. That's not something to be proud of as an American unless the world had adopted traditional American values. They haven't. Obama knows this which is why he put out a statement that he is accepting on behalf of Americans and American values. He is weakening America which the world thinks they will like better. He should have declined.


I am not one to have internet arguements, but the idea that Obama has weakend America anymore than the last guy did is beyond laughable. My question to you is, what did the last guy do to make America stronger?


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

I think that the weight of expectation for him to deliver is now greater than ever with this award. It could be a boon in global diplomatic terms or it could be a hindrance. Either way it was bold move on behalf of the Nobel committee. 

But, and this is a big BUT does anyone think it is possible to deliver peace in the Middle East considering the diverse political agendas and the machinations of a number of states that one has to factor into any equation to achieve an equitable outcome? No has been able to do achieve it for past 60 years. How knows maybe this time it might be different but I am not holding my breath on this one.

Of greater importance though is the possibility of consensus and action on Global Warming.


----------



## rwjones (Jan 29, 2009)

I think the next Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine should go to Deepak Chopra. Or Dr. 90210. Or me.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Actually, I do know, but I prefer not to say how I know. You are the one making assumptions.


You know nothing about what goes on behind closed doors in the Obama White House.

Thought you were going to put away your fairy tales for the winter?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

This is great! Imagine what kind of prize he will get if he actually accomplishes anything!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> You know nothing about what goes on behind closed doors in the Obama White House.


Ok, if you say so.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smallwonder said:


> I am not one to have internet arguements, but the idea that Obama has weakend America anymore than the last guy did is beyond laughable. My question to you is, what did the last guy do to make America stronger?


What I said was Obama represents the World's values not American values and that weakens America. It seems obvious why giving up American values would weaken America and perpetuating them would strengthen America.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Thought you were going to put away your fairy tales for the winter?


Your flippancy in failing to address the points put to you does not make your primary false assumptions any more valid. The eyeroll thing looks bad on you.

The fact remains this statement is not valid ... "But when he chooses to stay the course in Iraq, increase troops to Afghanistan, and close Gitmo only after a long and well designed plan - he is STILL criticized&#8230;lol. "

As I said, no such design or plan exists. You can only continue to divert attention from your original premise and cannot substantiate it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

What happened to the Viking Spirit?

If this were WWII they would be giving France a Noble Peace Prize for giving into the Nazis without firing one shot. T'is a shame the Noble Peace Prize doesn't mean anything anymore. People who don't know how peace works shouldn't be giving out prizes, especially those who stick their heads in the sand.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> His [G. W. Bush] speeches advocated a consistent position that clearly communicated, if not articulated, *a belief in American superiority.*


That American Superiority thing threads it way throughout your posts. I find it a distasteful phrase.

I don't know how it was you got here, but I was Made In America, c. '45. And not by choice, but by chance because the fetal breath isn't given options. I could have been born browner and in Mexico, but nobody asked me.

I don't believe I had a better high school than all the ones we beat in basketball. Nor do I believe we had the best damn family on the block. But I like and even love those things, my family, high school and my country. But I hate the idea of superiority because it's so conceited and so god damn destructive.
​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> That American Superiority thing threads it way throughout your posts. I find it a distasteful phrase.
> 
> I don't know how it was you got here, but I was Made In America, c. '45. And not by choice, but by chance because the fetal breath isn't given options. I could have been born browner and in Mexico, but nobody asked me.
> 
> I don't believe I had a better high school than all the ones we beat in basketball. Nor do I believe we had the best damn family on the block. But I like and even love those things, my family, high school and my country. But I hate the idea of superiority because it's so conceited and so god damn destructive.​


Well, I'm sure that swearing raises the moral authority of your argument in your own eyes especially since you seem to think the color of someone's skin is relevant to being an American.

American Superiority and/or American Exceptionalism is about Values and Culture, not your ethnicity, your family, or your highschool.

Frankly, the combination of a racist perspective and irreverent words do not give your charge of conceit much weight with me.

Thanks for sharing your inner ugliness in the light of day so blatantly. I fear many casual readers of the Interchange can't read between the lines of your other posts where it often seeps out more subtly.

If I had said White Superiority you would have a valid point, but I didn't. The question for yourself is why do you feel justified when you read the phrase American Superiority to imagine they mean the same thing?

There are a lot of Americans that weren't "made" here. It's not clear from your post you know what "American" even means. I have a neighbor that wasn't "Made in America", but he's a retired Army officer. He's also as black as the night. He's a fantastic American; that he is. Why must you project so?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Well, I'm sure that swearing raises the moral authority of your argument in your own eyes especially since you seem to think the color of someone's skin is relevant to being an American.
> 
> American Superiority and/or American Exceptionalism is about Values and Culture, not your ethnicity, your family, or your highschool.
> 
> ...


Well written. Long though, as usual. And way off the mark, but still, well written. Maybe you can save it and haul it out on someone else who actually makes the points you huff and puff against, for it wasn't me. I didn't come close to saying what it is to which you seem to object so. (Feel free to change Mexican to Canadian; it had nothing to do with race and everything to do with country.)​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Well written. Long though, as usual. And way off the mark, but still, well written. Maybe you can save it and haul it out on someone else who actually makes the points you huff and puff against, for it wasn't me. I didn't come close to saying what it is to which you seem to object so. (Feel free to change Mexican to Canadian; it had nothing to do with race and everything to do with country.)​


It's true you didn't come close. You, in fact, said it explicity ... "browner."

You were also the one way off the mark that was objecting, huffing, puffing, and 'GDing' against my "distasteful" phraseology. You objected and I rejected.

I merely slapped the ping pong balls you served up back across the net. I'll try to be more pithy for you, Mr. O'Reilly.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Your flippancy in failing to address the points put to you does not make your primary false assumptions any more valid. The eyeroll thing looks bad on you.
> 
> The fact remains this statement is not valid ... "But when he chooses to stay the course in Iraq, increase troops to Afghanistan, and close Gitmo only after a long and well designed plan - he is STILL criticized&#8230;lol. "
> 
> As I said, no such design or plan exists. You can only continue to divert attention from your original premise and cannot substantiate it.


Here is the thing. You claimed to have some inside information, and I called bull **** on you. Now in a lame attempt to cover the fact that you clearly know NOTHING of any inside dirt, you come back with this lame attempt to turn things back around. LOL

Solid as usual K.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Here is the thing. You claimed to have some inside information, and I called bull **** on you. Now in a lame attempt to cover the fact that you clearly know NOTHING of any inside dirt, you come back with this lame attempt to turn things back around. LOL
> 
> Solid as usual K.


That's not accurate at all. I thought your basic question was a good one and I thought you were asking it in good faith. The process you are imagining must have occured to prove your theory correct has not occured. I've seen it asked and answered; and I thought you would want to know that in fact it isn't true, but it's clear now you will not accept that and are only willing to spend time arguing on that because it is a distracter and you can't substantiate your original statement. As I called on you.

I am not claiming the process occurred and one side lost; i.e. "inside dirt." I'm saying simply that process did not occur. To me, it's pointless to defend the source; which you will just attack and so I'm unwilling to divulge or defend. Which is I why I said, "Ok, if you say so." That I cannot document what did not occur is a ridiculous position for you to take. Saying essentially, 'well you can't prove it never happened' is not a substantiation of your original statement where you imagine it did. Instead you should be able to document it did occur.

It's the same with a design or plan. There are enough basic facts and information in the public (60 Minutes even) to reject your original statement which I quoted.* There is no design or plan.* There is an absence of any evidence of it. Obama had only his *second* strategy meeting with his NS team when it was revealed by himself that there was no strategy. You are unwilling to defend your original statement and instead want to argue the second question. I'm unwilling to debate the tangent you threw out to distract from your inability to substantiate your statement. I repeat *there is no design or plan*. If you think there is, then point to it.


----------



## Victor123 (Jun 18, 2008)

Beresford said:


> Now wait a minute! Just wait a minute!
> 
> He did resolve that dispute between Professor Gates and that ******* policeman by having a beer with them in the Rose Garden.
> 
> That was the greatest contribution to racial reconciliation we've seen in many years.


Haha, the beer summit?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Hillary seems to be leading the efforts for peace and reconcilliation. All the Democrats I know either voted for her or have said they wish they had voted for her now that they have seen Obama in 'non-action.'

https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8d7d5f00e10f34124d253754c8f59ddf.261&show_article=1


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
It is a fair assessment to conclude that Hillary has actually accomplished (vs talked about) much more in her roll as Sec of State, than her boss has in his roll as President! Is such not the predictable outcome of inflated expectations? Should the President not begin acting more presidential and less like a cheerleader for Olympic Site Selection entourages (on the tax payer's dime!), Hillary could easily become Barrack Obama's worst nightmare in 2012!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> That's not accurate at all. I thought your basic question was a good one and I thought you were asking it in good faith. The process you are imagining must have occured to prove your theory correct has not occured. I've seen it asked and answered; and I thought you would want to know that in fact it isn't true, but it's clear now you will not accept that and are only willing to spend time arguing on that because it is a distracter and you can't substantiate your original statement. As I called on you.
> 
> I am not claiming the process occurred and one side lost; i.e. "inside dirt." I'm saying simply that process did not occur. To me, it's pointless to defend the source; which you will just attack and so I'm unwilling to divulge or defend. Which is I why I said, "Ok, if you say so." That I cannot document what did not occur is a ridiculous position for you to take. Saying essentially, 'well you can't prove it never happened' is not a substantiation of your original statement where you imagine it did. Instead you should be able to document it did occur.
> 
> It's the same with a design or plan. There are enough basic facts and information in the public (60 Minutes even) to reject your original statement which I quoted.* There is no design or plan.* There is an absence of any evidence of it. Obama had only his *second* strategy meeting with his NS team when it was revealed by himself that there was no strategy. You are unwilling to defend your original statement and instead want to argue the second question. I'm unwilling to debate the tangent you threw out to distract from your inability to substantiate your statement. I repeat *there is no design or plan*. If you think there is, then point to it.


NY Times - January 12, 2009 -*Obama's Plan to Close Prison at Guantánamo May Take Year *

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> NY Times - January 12, 2009 -*Obama's Plan to Close Prison at Guantánamo May Take Year *
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html


Thank you. Yes; I agree they are calling that a plan, but if you read the first para it says



> President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.


Plans is not "a plan" and even then that is a mischaracterization. What Obama did was make a decision; he has an idea (maybe a good one) which is to close Gitmo within a year. But, he just announced it and then started trying to come up with a way to do it. That is not a plan. And now that they can't find a workable plan they are setting up Greg Craig to take the political hit for what they are predicting will be a failure to meet the President's announced deadline. As you know the President announced this impossible goal and then left it to the Senate to try to assemble a workable plan and it's not happening so far.

I watched 60 Minutes last night (I don't know if you did), but they kept talking about the Strategy they have (they being the Military). Scott Pelley (SP?) kept calling it the Obama Strategy, however it's the strategy that requires 40-60k more troops. It's not Obama's strategy until he endorses it and commits resources. This is what has caused Obama to start holding strategy meetings with his NS team. I sincerely hope a strategy and plan comes out of these meetings, but to say Obama already has one is a mistake.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

It's nice to see that our standing in the world is improving and our President is respected by our allies and enemies once again ...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-fails-to-win-nobel-prize-in-economics-2009-10-12


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ksinc said:


> It's nice to see that our standing in the world is improving and our President is respected by our allies and enemies once again ...
> 
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-fails-to-win-nobel-prize-in-economics-2009-10-12


HAR!!

More troops and resources for Afghanistan??

No gots.

Lip service and awards.

Gots!!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> It is a fair assessment to conclude that Hillary has actually accomplished (vs talked about) much more in her roll as Sec of State, than her boss has in his roll as President! Is such not the predictable outcome of inflated expectations? Should the President not begin acting more presidential and less like a cheerleader for Olympic Site Selection entourages (on the tax payer's dime!), Hillary could easily become Barrack Obama's worst nightmare in 2012!


I think so too. The more I watch it play out I think Obama calculated that she wouldn't dare challenge him in the primary out of his own administration, but I think he 'mis-underestimated' the Clintons. Bill has been out there on his best behavior too while singing her praises. If she does it that will be a rough time for this country while they go at it. You just know Bill walks around mumbling "it's the economy, stupid" egging her on.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Plans is not "a plan" and even then that is a mischaracterization. What Obama did was make a decision; he has an idea (maybe a good one) which is to close Gitmo within a year. But, he just announced it and then started trying to come up with a way to do it. That is not a plan. And now that they can't find a workable plan they are setting up Greg Craig to take the political hit for what they are predicting will be a failure to meet the President's announced deadline. As you know the President announced this impossible goal and then left it to th


In the article it clearly states:
_
People who have discussed the issues with transition officials in recent weeks said it appeared that the *broad outlines of plans for the detention camp were taking shape*. They said transition officials appeared committed to ordering an immediate suspension of the Bush administration's military commissions system for trying detainees. _
_
In addition, people who have conferred with transition officials said *the incoming administration appeared to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. *The Bush administration has insisted that such a measure is necessary to close the Guantánamo camp and bring some detainees to the United States. _
_
Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants to close the camp. But in an interview on Sunday on ABC, he indicated that the process could take time, saying, *"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize." Closing it within the first 100 days of his administration, he said, would be "a challenge." *_

So, they had a plan in mind - they dug into the meat of it and realized that in order to close it in a safe and conscientious manner, would take more planning and more time. They have since rejected several "plans" and have been working through the legal issues necessary to finally close the prison and move prisoners elsewhere.

Sounds like not only did they HAVE A PLAN, but they were smart enough to realize their original promises could not be met without putting people at risk - so they CHANGED THEIR PLAN to include sufficient time to get things done the right way.

If you are trying to now say that only a "successful" and fully "executed" plan is a plan - then *clearly you are changing the parameters of this discussion*.

President Obama DID have a plan for closing Gitmo. But after further review with people in the intelligence community - he realized that his plan would be unwise and unsafe, so he backed off. If you want to criticize him for not having Gitmo already closed - then do so. But trying to say he never had a plan is *SIMPLY INCORRECT*


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> In the article it clearly states:
> 
> _People who have discussed the issues with transition officials in recent weeks said it appeared that the *broad outlines of plans for the detention camp were taking shape*. They said transition officials appeared committed to ordering an immediate suspension of the Bush administration's military commissions system for trying detainees. _
> 
> ...


He had "broad outlines for plans" and a "plan to issue an executive order." He did not have "a plan."

Nor does he have a strategy for Afghanistan.

He still has not backed off his announced goal to close Gitmo. He just can't come up with a plan to get it done. So, yes, he is weak and impotent.

If he had a plan perhaps he could convince some people to support the idea. Part of the opposition to closing Gitmo is the lack of a plan how to do it.

You can't both say they have a plan and they have rejected several plans are doing more planning. When you have a plan all that stops and you commit resources and execute the plan.

He has an idea, a dream, a goal, a promise, but NO PLAN.

Think of this objectively; say a child saying "I plan on cleaning my room." We'd all laugh at that and say "yeah right, get yourself in there and get cleaning right now."

You are correct that they made promises for which they now realize they can't keep. They would have realized that before if they had attempted to come up with a plan before, but they didn't. They just made political promises that people wanted to hear. No plan was offered. And no workable solution and plan has been found to-date. Most people are questioning the original idea of closing GITMO not the plan to do so. It was just an idea he threw out and people like yourself thought 'well, he's so smart he must have a plan to get that done', but he didn't and he still doesn't.

It's not part of a designed plan or strategy, it's just incompetence and lack of experience in leadership and management. He should have said, "I have a dream ... that one day GITMO can be closed." Sort of like W hedged it, by saying he would like to close GITMO, but had no solution how to do it. Closing GITMO is a complicated mess. Signing an executive order with no plan to get it done was a joke on those that supported him.

Trust me when I say I'm not laughing at you ... I think these types of amateur-hour plays hurt our country and I think Hillary would not be making these mistakes.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> He had "broad outlines for plans" and a "plan to issue an executive order." He did not have "a plan."
> 
> Nor does he have a strategy for Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


Glad to see you know it all K.

Glad to also see that President Obama is smart enough to get all the facts before he jumps into things. The last 8 years have shown just how much trouble you get into when you think with your balls and not your brain.

BTW...I think I will add your Hillary quote to my signature....lol.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Glad to see you know it all K.
> 
> Glad to also see that President Obama is smart enough to get all the facts before he jumps into things. The last 8 years have shown just how much trouble you get into when you think with your balls and not your brain.
> 
> BTW...I think I will add your Hillary quote to my signature....lol.


I don't know it all, but I am informed. I know that Obama had and has no plan. Why is that insulting to you; such that you have to try to insult me?

You just keep broadly attacking me with little remarks instead of the facts. You act like ignorance is a virtue and being informed is a character flaw. It's like saying 'well I don't know one way or the other so I will assume the best and anyone that has knowledge otherwise I will just attack them instead of adjusting my position.' How about some accountability; if not from yourself from the President?

Your second point makes no sense, I think you mistyped it? He is jumping in without all the facts - that's how he signed an executive order on the 'first day' without a plan. Back to Bush? Do you have anything else other than attacking me or attacking Bush?

Yes; Hillary is shrewd. It took me to convince you of that?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

May I step in here?

K (and I'm dead serious here), you display enormous talent in your ability to very quickly craft articulate responses to almost anything anyone says in the interchange that speaks well of the President. You may actually believe deep in your heart all that you write. You are wonderfully literate and I look for your posts first whenever I turn on the green light.

You will like this: you and Limbaugh share a similar ability. Three hours a day, five days a week, he speaks of nothing but distain of the President, over and over and over, yet he doesn't really repeat himself.

How do you guys do it? I can't write more than a few lines and I've said all I can say, but the ability to ceaselessly and articulately hammer home the same tired, damning points and yet make them sound fresh is a talent I think I admire.

(Kleen, he has no_ inside_ info. He made that up. And I admire that ability too. Sort of. And, Kleen, I enjoyed your recent postings here as well. Needless to say, I concur with most of what you wrote.)​


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I don't know it all, but I am informed. I know that Obama had and has no plan. Why is that insulting to you; such that you have to try to insult me?


I am surprised to hear that you consider someone calling you a "know it all" an insult. It seems to be a pretty well established fact out here.



ksinc said:


> Yes; Hillary is shrewd. It took me to convince you of that?


No, I know full well how shewed and intelligent she is. Just funny to see people on the right's dislike for President Obama rise to the point that they are complimenting a Clinton. And after not even a full year in office.

Heck, if it continues down this road, we may see Breitbart and the boys calling for the good old days of Jimmy Carter or even Bubba himself before its all said and done. :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> May I step in here?
> 
> K (and I'm dead serious here), you display enormous talent in your ability to very quickly craft articulate responses to almost anything anyone says in the interchange that speaks well of the President. You may actually believe deep in your heart all that you write. You are wonderfully literate and I look for your posts first whenever I turn on the green light.
> 
> ...


I did not make anything up. I responded to a ridiculous charge that the only way to know something was if you knew what went on within the walls of the WH with "ok, if you say so." The fact is it's been reported that the people that would have that counsel have not been to the WH, but I refuse to discuss that because it's a distracter. The follow-up is even more ridiculous. Regardless, I took the hit for that. I was not trying to not take the bait while stealing the bait. As I said I thought MrKleen was serious about his question, but I'm not going to quote an article or source only to hear "well of course you believe Breitbart" for instance =)

There is a constant barage of either hollow rhetoric or revisionism. It's not that hard to craft adhoc responses to complete BS. The same darn points are the inputs and My responses are my own. I appreciate the sincere part of your 'compliment.'

Yes, I believe what I write, but I would clarify that by saying that I frequently use the same tactic as Limbaugh which is to demonstrate the absurd by being absurd and turning it back around on them. Although, I have stopped that since I got dinged by a Mod with no sense of humor  I frequently ask an absurd question that could be interpreted as rhetorical which quickly filters those who are fanatics from those that are legitimately debating their values. The fanatics go hysterical and always read the post the wrong way and make the wrong choice. By doing so they show their true self in their response.

What I find humorous is the claims of "think for yourself" or "quit listening to Beck and Limbaugh" that are frequently paraphrased in this forum - I think you have realized that I am not repeating talking points and frequently one-side's only tactic is to marginalize the person instead of respond to the post. Or they go back to "Bush was worse" or other ridiculous and irrelevant defenses.

I think you can clearly see why I respect people who don't do that and I do like to tweak the regular actors, but what you may not see is that I think MrKleen is 'salvagable' and it's why I spend so much time on him (and you too, maybe)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> I am surprised to hear that you consider someone calling you a "know it all" an insult. It seems to be a pretty well established fact out here.
> 
> No, I know full well how shewed and intelligent she is. Just funny to see people on the right's dislike for President Obama rise to the point that they are complimenting a Clinton. And after not even a full year in office.
> 
> Heck, if it continues down this road, we may see Breitbart and the boys calling for the good old days of Jimmy Carter or even Bubba himself before its all said and done. :icon_smile:


At least that is a thought doesn't appear to be cut-and-pasted from HuffPo or DU. 

Bubba's problem wasn't that he was a bad leader and manager, but that he was a sexual predator and a perjurer. If he could have dated girls that didn't work for him and be honest about it then I think his reputation would be in tact.

I remember a great Dennis Miller joke he did which was something like if you're 22 and you're asked to give the President a BJ you should definitely do it. Just think of all the schmucks that end up working at McD's a 22 year old has to date looking for a decent guy these days. I guess his delivery is better than mine.

If you think I'm part of the moral majority conservative brigade that is against BJs - you have misread me.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Just a little refresher for those that don't care to read 3 pages

I said:




mrkleen said:


> How could you know that President Obama didnt have plans to close Gitmo immediately and draw down in Iraq in the first 12 months - only to have those plans change during his first few Security Council briefings in the first month of his Presidency?
> 
> Answer: You Dont.


 


ksinc said:


> Actually, I do know, but I prefer not to say how I know.


 


mrkleen said:


> You know nothing about what goes on behind closed doors in the Obama White House.


 


ksinc said:


> Ok, if you say so.


 Now, you trying to come with this weak, completely FALSE reply:




ksinc said:


> I did not make anything up. I responded to a ridiculous charge that the only way to know something was if you knew what went on within the walls of the WH with "ok, if you say so."


 So once again to restate my original point:

It is VERY POSSIBLE that President Obama had a plan when he took office for closing Gitmo&#8230;and after taking the office of President and being granted access to people and intelligence that he did not have prior, found the best course was to alter his plan, slow things down, and take the advice of those on the ground in Cuba and in the Security Council.

To my original point, Ksinc DOES NOT know if that was or was not the case. Only someone that was in the White House and privy to those early conversations could possibly know what the President did and did not bring to the table as a preliminary plan.

To top it off, he tired to suggest (as you can clearly see above) that he has some sort of inside information on this subject. When he was called out on it, he changed his tune to some babble about 60 minutes and blah blah blah&#8230;.trying to not only get away from his FALSE CLAIM that he had inside information, but trying to re-frame the entire argument.

It is all there in black and white (or whatever shade of blue you want to call it.)


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> _*Bubba's problem wasn't that he was a bad leader and manager, but that he was a sexual predator and a perjurer*._ If he could have dated girls that didn't work for him and be honest about it then I think his reputation would be in tact.
> 
> I remember a great Dennis Miller joke he did which was something like if you're 22 and you're asked to give the President a BJ you should definitely do it. Just think of all the schmucks that end up working at McD's a 22 year old has to date looking for a decent guy these days. I guess his delivery is better than mine.
> 
> If you think I'm part of the moral majority conservative brigade that is against BJs - you have misread me.


Once again, your alacrity is amazing. A compliment, that.

I'm going to bow out of this thread, because I've nothing to add and being a fly-on-the-wall to you and Kleen is amusement enough. The only reason I entered again was because of the emboldened line in your post above. It's off topic for this thread, but I hope you'll bring it up again in a dedicated thread, 'round midnight some night, when I'm more awake.​


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I think you can clearly see why I respect people who don't do that and I do like to tweak the regular actors, but what you may not see is that I think MrKleen is 'salvagable' and it's why I spend so much time on him (and you too, maybe)


K

I dont need to be 'salvaged', I am quite happy to call myself a liberal in the tradition of great Massachusetts democrats like John Quincy Adams, Ted Kennedy, Tip O'Neil, JFK, RFK and others like FDR, Bill Clinton, and even Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

I am not an across the board bleeding heart. I can certainly see the error in lots of what President Obama is doing - but probably not for the same reasons you do. I see him as not being enough of a change from the policies or GW - and not really representing the Democratic principals that he ran on.

Whether you like it or not, that is one thing the Republicans are good at....they run on a platform and then hammer it home day after day for the time they are in power.

It is time for Obama and his super majority in Congress to go and get things done. Pass health care reform, close Gitmo, nominate a few more liberals to the supreme court and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Just a little refresher for those that don't care to read 3 pages
> 
> I said:
> 
> ...


So I claimed it, then I tried to suggest it, then I made a lame attempt to change my tune and get away from my false claim which is; what exactly? Quote my false claim. What I did was, perhaps clumsily, try to defuse your distracter from your original statement which is unsubstantiated.

Yes; I do know that it is not how he did it and I prefer not to say how I know. Your false interpretation of that is that I have "inside dirt" on closed door WH conversations. I'm telling you the people required to have that conversation have not been not been to the WH. I saw it asked and answered. It's impossible for you to imagine what they said, when they have not been asked nor spoken to the administration.

Regardless, this is a tangent. You are not substantiating your statement. You are arguing that in the absence of evidence to the contrary you can imagine whatever you want and make up whatever reality you want to explain the President's inability fulfill his promises.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> K
> It is time for Obama and his super majority in Congress to go and get things done. Pass health care reform, close Gitmo, nominate a few more liberals to the supreme court and let the chips fall where they may.


So you finally admit he has not and is not getting anything done? WHEW! that only took you about 10 posts ... wait a minute I thought you were arguing he had decided not to close GITMO after listening to those opposed to this?

Which is it? Obama is going to follow through on his plan to close GITMO or he is rethinking it on the considered advice of those with knowledge of the NS implications?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Regardless, this is a tangent. You are not substantiating your statement.


Bottom line here is you overplayed your hand. You got called on it and you are trying to back peddle away from it now.

Happens to the best of us.....sorry you are too stubborn to admit it and move on.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Once again, your alacrity is amazing. A compliment, that.
> 
> I'm going to bow out of this thread, because I've nothing to add and being a fly-on-the-wall to you and Kleen is amusement enough. The only reason I entered again was because of the emboldened line in your post above. It's off topic for this thread, but I hope you'll bring it up again in a dedicated thread, 'round midnight some night, when I'm more awake.​


Do you know how to start a new thread? :devil:

You realize I'm just recalling the previous discussion and jerking your chain ... :icon_smile_big:

I'm happy to discuss Slick-Willy anytime. He did an interview during the President's Cup which I found very interesting and I have many thoughts about him.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Bottom line here is you overplayed your hand. You got called on it and you are trying to back peddle away from it now.
> 
> Happens to the best of us.....sorry you are too stubborn to admit it and move on.


I admitted it like two pages ago.

You are unwilling to accept what I said and go back to substantiate your statement. So, you are arguing this tangent as I knew you would do and why I misplayed my hand trying to let you have your debate point even though it was a ridiculous assumption and charge.

You're just proving my point that you cannot substantiate your statement and you would rather continue to harp on this red-herring you threw out.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> So you finally admit he has not and is not getting anything done? WHEW! that only took you about 10 posts ... wait a minute I thought you were arguing he had decided not to close GITMO after listening to those opposed to this?
> 
> Which is it? Obama is going to follow through on his plan to close GITMO or he is rethinking it on the considered advice of those with knowledge of the NS implications?


I refuse to keep banging my heard against the wall here...as we have reached the point we do with most of our debates....where I just have to laugh and move on.

I had hold my nose and take GW's medicine for 8 years. The Republicans failed and you lost miserably in the last 2 elections.

Time to open up and take your medicine like a big boy now.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> I refuse to keep banging my heard against the wall here...as we have reached the point we do with most of our debates....where I just have to laugh and move on.
> 
> I had hold my nose and take GW's medicine for 8 years. The Republicans failed and you lost miserably in the last 2 elections.
> 
> Time to open up and take your medicine like a big boy now.


Great answer. Club GITMO Lives! :devil:

I bet you $1 it still won't be closed by the November 2010 elections? Nor will there be a plan to close it.

I'm concerned that you say "you lost miserably" - I haven't run for partisan elected office; yet. I'm actually thinking that if I do run I will be running as a Democrat. 

My current elected position is non-partisan and I won 195-43  (FTR the 43 votes were all cast by the same person - via proxies) LOL


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> My current elected position is non-partisan and I won 195-43  (FTR the 43 votes were all cast by the same person - via proxies) LOL


Gotta love Florida Elections.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Gotta love Florida Elections.


Florida Elections? I guess technically you're correct. It is under Florida statute. :devil:


----------



## KCKclassic (Jul 27, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Hillary seems to be leading the efforts for peace and reconcilliation. All the Democrats I know either voted for her or have said they wish they had voted for her now that they have seen Obama in 'non-action.'
> 
> https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8d7d5f00e10f34124d253754c8f59ddf.261&show_article=1


wow, you know democrats? that's un-possible


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

KCKclassic said:


> wow, you know democrats? that's un-possible


I know it seems that way, but down here it used to be most Conservatives were Democrats. Now it's probably a little more than half are Republican, but there's still many that are Democrats. Of course, they are not a majority in their own party either.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*Stunner!!*

Here in the land of high school football we had a surprise Friday night. It was homecoming for the local high school and Obama was not given the title of homecoming queen though he plans to do some things in the future to earn it!


----------



## Black & Proud (Oct 28, 2009)

adrian07 said:


> Is it now been given to people who just aspire to do things? Well, Miss Universe contestants always 'aspire' to achieve world peace, so maybe they should share next year's award.
> 
> Other people could have used the money and protection this award gives. There are freedom fighters in China's and Iran's prisons who are more deserving, and Morgan Tsvangirai has shed a lot of blood and even lost his wife in a questionable accident for peace.
> 
> This is all I have to say to them and their award:


Actually the specific regulations of the award says it must be given to the person who did the most in the preceding year to bring peace and stability to the world. Barack Obama, just in the course of campaigning over 2008 - including his historic speech in Germany, certainly fit the bill. His election brought hope to the world that the US had finally seen the light and would change its militaristic outlook on the rest of the world.

My wife and I left the US in early 2001 after the stolen election of George Bush (more the final straw than sole reason), and moved to BRasil, which is where her family is from. Since the election of President Obama, our family has given serious consideration to returning to the US. The riotous healthcare debate made us take a second look, however, that perhaps despite the historic election of an African-American as President, that America has not truly matured enough to raise our children in. We hope that more Americans will open their hearts to change and healing.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Black & Proud said:


> Actually the specific regulations of the award says it must be given to the person who did the most in the preceding year to bring peace and stability to the world. Barack Obama, just in the course of campaigning over 2008 - including his historic speech in Germany, certainly fit the bill. His election brought hope to the world that the US had finally seen the light and would change its militaristic outlook on the rest of the world.
> 
> My wife and I left the US in early 2001 after the stolen election of George Bush (more the final straw than sole reason), and moved to BRasil, which is where her family is from. Since the election of President Obama, our family has given serious consideration to returning to the US. The riotous healthcare debate made us take a second look, however, that perhaps despite the historic election of an African-American as President, that America has not truly matured enough to raise our children in. We hope that more Americans will open their hearts to change and healing.


No doubt Bush stuck his head in the sand in the middle east but, What did the Democrats give to vote for? Nothing! And, as far as what Obama is, Show me the health care bill on line for that "openness", "transparency", etc. Why is this being done out of sight of _We The People_? Charisma does not make good people, nor does the lack of charisma make evil people. In fact, Linen and Hilter both had charisma, so the Nobel Peace Prize group ought to rethink what they maybe giving the prize to. Some people, like mob bosses, who know how to make others feel good about themselves (charisma) know how to get lots of money by deception (treachery) by using charisma (why else would anybody listen to them?). While there are some very good people with charisma there are some rotten apples, too. The love fest with Obama is about charisma and not substance. Substance shows later. That is what the Nobel Peace Prize should be about- Substance!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Black & Proud said:


> Actually the specific regulations of the award says it must be given to the person who did the most in the preceding year to bring peace and stability to the world. Barack Obama, just in the course of campaigning over 2008 - including his historic speech in Germany, certainly fit the bill. *His election brought hope to the world that the US had finally seen the light and would change its militaristic outlook on the rest of the world.*
> 
> My wife and I left the US in early 2001 after the stolen election of George Bush (more the final straw than sole reason), and moved to BRasil, which is where her family is from. Since the election of President Obama, our family has given serious consideration to returning to the US. The riotous healthcare debate made us take a second look, however, that perhaps despite the historic election of an African-American as President, that America has not truly matured enough to raise our children in. We hope that more Americans will open their hearts to change and healing.





WA said:


> No doubt Bush stuck his head in the sand in the middle east but, What did the Democrats give to vote for? Nothing! And, as far as what Obama is, Show me the health care bill on line for that "openness", "transparency", etc. Why is this being done out of sight of _We The People_? Charisma does not make good people, nor does the lack of charisma make evil people. In fact, Linen and Hilter both had charisma, so the Nobel Peace Prize group ought to rethink what they maybe giving the prize to. Some people, like mob bosses, who know how to make others feel good about themselves (charisma) know how to get lots of money by deception (treachery) by using charisma (why else would anybody listen to them?). While there are some very good people with charisma there are some rotten apples, too. The love fest with Obama is about charisma and not substance. Substance shows later. *That is what the Nobel Peace Prize should be about- Substance!*


Or at least rename it the Nobel Hope Award.

Good job WA!


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Black & Proud said:


> Actually the specific regulations of the award says it must be given to the person who did the most in the preceding year to bring peace and stability to the world. Barack Obama, just in the course of campaigning over 2008 - including his historic speech in Germany, certainly fit the bill. His election brought hope to the world that the US had finally seen the light and would change its militaristic outlook on the rest of the world.
> 
> My wife and I left the US in early 2001 after the stolen election of George Bush (more the final straw than sole reason), and moved to BRasil, which is where her family is from. Since the election of President Obama, our family has given serious consideration to returning to the US. The riotous healthcare debate made us take a second look, however, that perhaps despite the historic election of an African-American as President, that America has not truly matured enough to raise our children in. We hope that more Americans will open their hearts to change and healing.


I heard Brasil is nice. You should stay there.


----------



## Black & Proud (Oct 28, 2009)

WA said:


> No doubt Bush stuck his head in the sand in the middle east but, What did the Democrats give to vote for? Nothing!


I wouldn't call a two-term US Vice President and former US Senator, who had been a vital part of one of the most successful presidential administrations in US history (and later received an Oscar Award, and Nobel Peace Prize), as 'nothing'. Certainly that was more qualification than being the most famous village idiot of texas.



> And, as far as what Obama is, Show me the health care bill on line for that "openness", "transparency", etc. Why is this being done out of sight of _We The People_?


Any real observer of the US Congress knows that there are several healthcare bills on the floor at any given time - but I presume you mean what the media calls President Barack Obama's bill (HR 3200). Well it has been online for many months free for anyone to read:

I prefer S.391 () as it would create complete universal healthcare in the US. But, I do give congratulations and respect to President Obama where due, since it is hard to make any step towards progress in that country, with so many Rush limbaugh and Glenn Beck followers.



> Charisma does not make good people, nor does the lack of charisma make evil people. In fact, Linen and Hilter both had charisma, so the Nobel Peace Prize group ought to rethink what they maybe giving the prize to.


Why should they? Fair is fair huh? LOL Sounds like some sour grapes over the success and recognition of President Barack Obama. Do you think the Olympic Committee should also 'rethink' the gold medals of Jesse Owens??



> Some people, like mob bosses, who know how to make others feel good about themselves (charisma) know how to get lots of money by deception (treachery) by using charisma (why else would anybody listen to them?).


Hmm...careful now, you're insulting the base of the Republican party! LOL



> While there are some very good people with charisma there are some rotten apples, too. The love fest with Obama is about charisma and not substance. Substance shows later. That is what the Nobel Peace Prize should be about- Substance!


President Obama has done more for the US in nine months than the Bush family did in twelve years combined. And Barack Obama's daddy wasn't the President - he was a dead African. He had to earn everything he has. And the man has never done a DUI, AWOL, or passed out after choking on a pretzel. RS


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

If it ever becomes necessary to pay to keep you in this forum, put me down for a few bucks.​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> If it ever becomes necessary to pay to keep you in this forum, put me down for a few bucks.​


B&P,

Do you need this kind of Liberal condescension??


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Black & Proud said:


> ......
> President Obama has done more for the US in nine months than the Bush family did in twelve years combined. And Barack Obama's daddy wasn't the President - he was a dead African. He had to earn everything he has. And the man has never done a DUI, AWOL, or passed out after choking on a pretzel. RS


Could you elaborate on that list of accomplishments? Are you including turning US currency into not much more that "junk money" as one of those accomplishments. Good lord, even the Communist Chinese are becoming hesitant to finance our debt!


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Black & Proud said:


> My wife and I left the US in early 2001 after the stolen election of George Bush (more the final straw than sole reason), and moved to BRasil, which is where her family is from. Since the election of President Obama, our family has given serious consideration to returning to the US. The riotous healthcare debate made us take a second look, however, that perhaps despite the historic election of an African-American as President, that America has not truly matured enough to raise our children in. We hope that more Americans will open their hearts to change and healing.


You do understand that you now live in Brazil.

Not Iceland. Not Norway. Brazil.

I've been to Brazil. As they say in New England, "Good luck to you and the Red Sox."


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

fenway said:


> You do understand that you now live in Brazil.
> 
> Not Iceland. Not Norway. Brazil.
> 
> I've been to Brazil. As they say in New England, "Good luck to you and the Red Sox."


 You do understand that he is am AMERICAN. What difference does it make where he lives now?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Black & Proud said:


> My wife and I left the US in early 2001 after the stolen election of George Bush (more the final straw than sole reason), and moved to Brasil, which is where her family is from.


I think it takes enormous courage to do that. Hope you come back someday.
​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

fenway said:


> You do understand that you now live in Brazil.
> 
> Not Iceland. Not Norway. Brazil.
> 
> I've been to Brazil. As they say in New England, "Good luck to you and the Red Sox."


What does this even mean? And I'm in New England, so stop giving us a bad name.​


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> What does this even mean? And I'm in New England, so stop giving us a bad name.​


Oh yeah. Well, the Yankees are in the World Series and the RED SOX AREN'T

BILL BUCKNER

BILL BUCKNER

BILL BUCKNER

(We of course will ignore that my beloved Tigers did not make the playoffs - - - -)


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Oh yeah. Well, the Yankees are in the World Series and the RED SOX AREN'T
> 
> BILL BUCKNER
> 
> ...


Yeah and 11 of the last 12 World Series have been won by the team winning game one. Feel free to jump back off the bandwagon now.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Could you elaborate on that list of accomplishments? Are you including turning US currency into not much more that "junk money" as one of those accomplishments. Good lord, even the Communist Chinese are becoming hesitant to finance our debt!


Our situation with the Communist Chinese government is a direct result of nearly 30 years of primarily Republican globalist actions and inactions in our Congress and Executive Branch, and in particular, actions and inactions of the 12 years of Republican-led congresses prior to last year's elections. Blaming Obama for it is clearly revisionism ad absurdum.

Facts are facts: Richard Nixon "opened the gates to China", Ronald Reagan nailed those gates open, and subsequent presidents/congresses have sat on their hands while America's manufacturing sector has been reduced to rubble. We're the only industrialized country in the world who rewards its corporations for exporting domestic jobs, and we've been doing so since 1985.

As for the Nobel Prize, as the Committee has explained repeatedly, the award has occasionally been given not for past accomplishments but to encourage future ones. IMO it's more a vote of confidence than anything else, and a collective sigh of relief that Obama has begun to reestablish multilateral diplomacy around the world.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

What are you, Rip Van Winkle? We could have used you earlier on here.
​


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> ...Facts are facts: Richard Nixon "opened the gates to China", Ronald Reagan nailed those gates open, and subsequent presidents/congresses have sat on their hands while America's manufacturing sector has been reduced to rubble. We're the only industrialized country in the world who rewards its corporations for exporting domestic jobs, and we've been doing so since 1985.
> 
> ...


...and our current President and his henchmen have been running the printing presses 24/7, since just days after Obama's inauguration, printing funny money and reducing the dollar to Third World currency status. The gravy train is eventually going to fail! If we thought last years financial meltdown was bad, "we haven't seen nothin yet!" Wake Up America.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> The gravy train is eventually going to fail! If we thought last years financial meltdown was bad, "we haven't seen nothin yet!" Wake Up America.


Whadda you, Paul Revere? Stop scaring us (that's Glen Beck's job). You're usually far more grounded than this.
​


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Eagle, this question is neither rhetoric nor meant to induce irritation, but you did know presidents neither print currency nor specify the amount to be printed, right?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Welcome back Frank.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Thanks Laxplayer. It appears the place hasn't changed much over the last few years, so (probably to the mods' relief) I'll try and limit my participation to outside the Interchange.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Or at least rename it the Nobel Hope Award.
> 
> Good job WA!


Hope is what I came up with, too.

They really need foresight. I've had lots of hopes that certainly wasa not foresight.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Black & Proud said:


> I wouldn't call a two-term US Vice President and former US Senator, who had been a vital part of one of the most successful presidential administrations in US history (and later received an Oscar Award, and Nobel Peace Prize), as 'nothing'. Certainly that was more qualification than being the most famous village idiot of texas.


You still missing something. How can the most famous village idiot of texas win if the Democrats had put out something better than an idot? So you voted for less than an idot? Besides, if any of those Democrats had won the economy would be in worse shape than it is now. If bush was an idot for putting us into the debt were in, before he left, how do you explain Obama tripleing it in less than one year? It looks like Obama three times the idot Bush was.



> But, I do give congratulations and respect to President Obama where due, since it is hard to make any step towards progress in that country, with so many Rush limbaugh and Glenn Beck followers.


Why do you guys always hide behind people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? I do my own thinking and actually prayed for a "Rush Limbaugh" before he stepped to the plate. I also asked for a "Reagan" before Reagan stepped to the plate and wondered for a while if Reagan was the one I prayed for. Rush Limbaugh showed the cons of the liberal Democrats and explained it to the brain dead. To this day the liberal Democrats hate him showing them out for what they really were and still are. C-SPAN also showed the world what the lieing Democrats really were. Because of those three many people choose Republicans. The truth can hurt, but it is better for us.



> Why should they? Fair is fair huh? LOL Sounds like some sour grapes over the success and recognition of President Barack Obama. Do you think the Olympic Committee should also 'rethink' the gold medals of Jesse Owens??


Did you say you moved out of the country because Bush won? Obama has won and I'm still here.



> Hmm...careful now, you're insulting the base of the Republican party! LOL


The Republicans want the death sentence. The Democrats and mob bosses don't. Democrats don't even want people in jail it seems to me by the way the let them out. Republicans like human responsilbility. The Democrats like to herd people around from corral to corral like dumb animals. If you look at their bills it should be very clear. So, when their bills become law it hurts everybody. So, with Democrats we are behind bars, anyway, of a different kind.



> President Obama has done more for the US in nine months than the Bush family did in twelve years combined. And Barack Obama's daddy wasn't the President - he was a dead African. He had to earn everything he has. And the man has never done a DUI, AWOL, or passed out after choking on a pretzel. RS


Why does he smoke those unhealthy cigaretts and expect me to pay his medical bill? He says Canada has a great health care system. Why does he lie? Does he not know thousands of Canadians come south of the border for medical that they pay out of their own pockets? Some Canadians sell their house just to get the medical they need, which is south of their border, because doctors are not allowed to do these things that need to be done up there unless governments hand is in it. Many Canadians pull the wool over their eyes. Some boarder towns in the US one third of the people in hospitals and other medical are Canadians. That proves the Canadian medical system is a mess.

We do agree that heatlh care should be availible for everyone in one form or another. No doubt the Republicans bungled it up during Bush Jr. term. I liked it the way it was before, not the way it is going. I really don't believe there will be absolute health care as the Democrats say, so I think they are lieing, again. In the end I think a lot of Democrat voters will be complianing about not getting everything they need when they go to the doctor, and the democrats are ramming this through.

The truth is, pull the wool over the eyes or, sell the house for good health and go to Mexico or India for the medical needs. A dead person does not need a house.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Thanks Laxplayer.  It appears the place hasn't changed much over the last few years, so (probably to the mods' relief) I'll try and limit my participation to outside the Interchange.


Frank, how can you say that. Why, by gawd, some of us even missed you...we really did!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Eagle, this question is neither rhetoric nor meant to induce irritation, but you did know presidents neither print currency nor specify the amount to be printed, right?


Gee Frank, thanks for reminding me: The Obama administration is not responsible for the consequences of their decisions (they have even said so, themselves!), made during the first year of their administration. We'll just consider the first year or so as on the job training and the further deterioration on our currency as just a cost of doing business!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> Gee Frank, thanks for reminding me: The Obama administration is not responsible for the consequences of their decisions (they have even said so, themselves!), made during the first year of their administration. We'll just consider the first year or so as on the job training and the further deterioration on our currency as just a cost of doing business!


 So, the recession started on January 21st?

Guess I didn't read the paper that day.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> So, the recession started on January 21st?
> 
> Guess I didn't read the paper that day.


No, but the debt has tripled!!

You've missed a lot more than one day!!

Then again, you may have been reading the NY Times!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> No, but the debt has tripled!!
> 
> You've missed a lot more than one day!!
> 
> Then again, you may have been reading the NY Times!!


 Do you think that money was spent in a vacuum, or do you acknowledge that part of the cost being so high is related to just how big of a mess he inherited?

If one guy performs routine maintenance on his car, while the other lets his go to pot for 8 years - who do you think is going to have the bigger bill when the car dies on the side of the road?

I am not trying to excuse the President him for spending a lot of money and getting very few results to this point. But the fact remains that the economy is starting to grow again and the numbers from the stock market prove that. 

Whether he could have gotten the same movement with a lot less money is certainly up for debate. But to suggest that a person that is handed a rotten egg is solely responsible for the stench because he is the one currently holding it is just ridiculous.


----------

