President Obama wins Nobel Peace Price
10-09-2009, 06:41 PM
#62
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Barrack,
You're not Yassir Arafat, or "Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini" depending upon where you're from. Talk to me when you've held a few hundred with a detonator in your hand in a shamed attempt to collect protection money from an airline.
Love,
White Male
Reply
0
0
10-09-2009, 06:49 PM
#63
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Where is the thread where we criticize NASA for not providing sufficient footage of theice search 270,000 miles away? I say pull the ******* plug if it can't provide entertainment from my sofa while I drink Budweiser. Oh ****, a Chinese company bought Hummer, saving freedom from Hussein Blackbama!!!
Reply
0
0
10-09-2009, 06:56 PM
#65
If the republicans had wanted to keep the White House they would have nominated another boring old white guy for VP. It was in the bag, they sabotaged their campaign because the damage done by GW could not be undone overnight. Also unless you earn under 20k or over 500k a year neither of these political parties represent or give a **** about you.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2009, 07:24 PM
#66
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
plus whatever happened to true republicanism/libertarianism that you guys are always talking about? wouldn't us sticking our nose into other countries business go against that practice?
Reply
0
0
10-09-2009, 07:30 PM
#67
Elite Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Taos, New mexico
Posts: 6,609
Total Cats: 566
Open your eyes. This man is ushering in a one world government. They are purposely crashing the dollar so they can institute a new currency, a singe world currency.
Him getting this prize is just part of a popularity contest, which obama has been pushing since he was campaigning(and still is?).
Left and right are the same, i dislike obama as much as i did bush, mccain would NOT have been any better.
Him getting this prize is just part of a popularity contest, which obama has been pushing since he was campaigning(and still is?).
Left and right are the same, i dislike obama as much as i did bush, mccain would NOT have been any better.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2009, 08:04 PM
#70
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Didn't say there had to be, but some issues can only be settled with a strong pimp hand, and Obama is tying that hand behind our back as we speak. I don't agree with sticking our noses into a lot of things that we do, but some things can't be ignored. To do so could give someone much more dangerous and unstable than us the chance to become too powerful to deal with. If its us or them that have to go, of course I would prefer it be them. Obama was talking about us stepping down from the role of world super power, and letting other countries pull their weight. I agree that should happen, but it won't. When since WWII have any countries ever stepped up to the plate to do something. They always look at us and wait for us to make the first move. So for us to back down and wait and see would be a mistake. That would give some dangerous people time to plan **** that would be bad for us and our allies.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2009, 08:46 PM
#73
On the plus side he now has something in common with Elie Weisel, Albert Schweitzer, Teddy Roosevelt, Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa. On the negative side he's now in with Gorbachev, Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Sadat & Begin.
Seriously. Good on him and the positive attention it brings the USA. Others are right. He didn't give it to himself.
Or did he?!? Bwa ha ha....
Seriously. Good on him and the positive attention it brings the USA. Others are right. He didn't give it to himself.
Or did he?!? Bwa ha ha....
Last edited by cueball1; 10-09-2009 at 08:59 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2009, 11:31 PM
#76
I don't want to be rude or disrespectful, and I really don't want to start an argument, but Pres. Barack Obama's indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. Some background is in order: I frequently wish to tell Obama that I would rather die than remain silent in response to that which I am convinced is profoundly crafty. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. As my mother used to tell me, "The cry of 'bigot' is raised mostly by bigots."
Obama apparently believes that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality. You and I know better than that. You and I know that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to reinforce what is best in people—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that if Obama truly wanted to be helpful, he wouldn't fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units.
If we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to resolve a number of lingering problems. Sadly, in once sense, Obama is correct. If we let him gag free speech, then I will certainly be forced to put myself in harm's way. His opinion is that the purpose of life is self-gratification. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that it's easy enough to hate Obama any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Obama is up to, things that ought to make a real Obama-hater out of you. First off, were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be his most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Obama to help him censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype.
The only weapons Obama has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. He is absolutely determined to believe that he is cunctipotent, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. As one commentator put it, Obama doesn't want equality but revenge, and everyone with half a brain understands that. If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I get us out of the hammerlock that he is holding us in. I have seen what he is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid and I am very angry.
There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Obama. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to inane grafters who want to make human life negligible and cheap. He has been trying for some time to sell the public on a credentialism-based government. Obama's sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: He can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains. The emotional argument: Doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that he has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his terrorist organization loyal to him. Obama's principal myth is that if he kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. The truth is that Obama has written volumes about how there's no difference between normal people like you and me and incoherent, caustic buttinskies. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that I call upon him to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to open new avenues for the expression of hate.
The question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "Do Obama's revenge fantasies appear reasonable to anyone other than impolitic upstarts?" The answer is not obvious because whenever Obama is presented with the statement that it's about time he stopped claiming his supercilious, brutal endeavors were influenced by outside sources and just admitted he was wrong, he spews out the hackneyed excuse that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that Obama periodically puts up a façade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. It's best to ignore most of the quotes that Obama so frequently cites. He takes quotes out of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, juxtaposed to this is the idea that Obama's hatchet men must be worn out from the acrobatics they have to perform to keep Obama from turning on them, too. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Does Obama realize he's more brutish than a sneaky publisher of hate literature? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because Obama lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of his life I will restate what I said before for his sake: His confidants can read some crock of vitriolic, whiney drivel he once wrote and believe that they've read something really profound. To say anything else would be a lie.
I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this, but Obama's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that it would be nugatory to discuss his slurs without first mentioning that his fusillades are now a staple of his cult followers' principles. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that as that last sentence suggests, Obama's barbs are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk"—an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well—because Obama's legatees have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to shed the light of truth on the evil that is Obama. It may be unfashionable to say so and it may surprise a few of you out there, but he has been offering wild, domineering survivalists a lot of money to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that I like to say that Obama attempts to sound intelligent by cramming as many big words into a sentence as possible, whether they are used correctly or not. He never directly acknowledges such truisms but instead tries to turn them around to make it sound like I'm saying that his memoirs will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society. I guess that version better fits his style—or should I say, "agenda"?
However indecent the national picture already is, if Obama thinks his rejoinders represent progress, he should rethink his definition of progress. Maybe he is being manipulated by self-indulgent converts to voyeurism, but even so, if I had to choose the most destructive specimen from his welter of feral gabble, it would have to be his claim that he has a "special" perspective on Dadaism that carries with it a "special" right to replicate the most savage structures of contemporary life. You should check out some of the things Obama is saying about isolationism. The litany of inaccuracies, half-truths, made-up "facts", and downright falsehoods will shock you. And I won't even bother mentioning that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Obama and his compeers started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that the key to Obama's soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. He dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Obama's ploys, one is promptly condemned as neurotic, snotty, power-drunk, or whatever epithet Obama deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation.
Many people are convinced that it is irresponsible to accept everything at face value. I can't comment on that, but I can say that his gestapo appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction, yet I keep reminding myself that he would have us believe that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes. To be honest, he has never actually said that explicitly, but if you follow his logic—what little there is—you'll see that this is his real point. When I say that Obama's bons mots are offensive, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something offensive or that they have one or two offensive characteristics. I mean that they are offensive. In fact, the most offensive thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that we can't stop Obama overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to turn random, senseless violence into meaningful action.
A central fault line runs through each of Obama's stances. Specifically, if we fail to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity then all of our sacrifices will be as forgotten as the sand blowing across Ozymandias's dead empire. The "decay of that colossal wreck," as the poet Shelley puts it, teaches us that I intend to look closely at Obama's platitudes to see what makes them so effectual at making my blood curdle. I should expect to find—this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify—that as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the kinds of people Obama preys upon. The fact that what really gets my goat is knowing that we live in stinking times is particularly striking because even when Obama isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to condone illegal activities. I would like to go on, but I do have to keep this short. So I'll wrap it up by saying that Pres. Barack Obama's general prostration before fogyism confirms that I find Obama's epigrams symptomatic of a dangerous but spreading mentality.
Obama apparently believes that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality. You and I know better than that. You and I know that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to reinforce what is best in people—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that if Obama truly wanted to be helpful, he wouldn't fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units.
If we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to resolve a number of lingering problems. Sadly, in once sense, Obama is correct. If we let him gag free speech, then I will certainly be forced to put myself in harm's way. His opinion is that the purpose of life is self-gratification. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that it's easy enough to hate Obama any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Obama is up to, things that ought to make a real Obama-hater out of you. First off, were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be his most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Obama to help him censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype.
The only weapons Obama has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. He is absolutely determined to believe that he is cunctipotent, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. As one commentator put it, Obama doesn't want equality but revenge, and everyone with half a brain understands that. If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I get us out of the hammerlock that he is holding us in. I have seen what he is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid and I am very angry.
There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Obama. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to inane grafters who want to make human life negligible and cheap. He has been trying for some time to sell the public on a credentialism-based government. Obama's sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: He can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains. The emotional argument: Doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that he has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his terrorist organization loyal to him. Obama's principal myth is that if he kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. The truth is that Obama has written volumes about how there's no difference between normal people like you and me and incoherent, caustic buttinskies. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that I call upon him to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to open new avenues for the expression of hate.
The question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "Do Obama's revenge fantasies appear reasonable to anyone other than impolitic upstarts?" The answer is not obvious because whenever Obama is presented with the statement that it's about time he stopped claiming his supercilious, brutal endeavors were influenced by outside sources and just admitted he was wrong, he spews out the hackneyed excuse that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that Obama periodically puts up a façade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. It's best to ignore most of the quotes that Obama so frequently cites. He takes quotes out of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, juxtaposed to this is the idea that Obama's hatchet men must be worn out from the acrobatics they have to perform to keep Obama from turning on them, too. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Does Obama realize he's more brutish than a sneaky publisher of hate literature? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because Obama lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of his life I will restate what I said before for his sake: His confidants can read some crock of vitriolic, whiney drivel he once wrote and believe that they've read something really profound. To say anything else would be a lie.
I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this, but Obama's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that it would be nugatory to discuss his slurs without first mentioning that his fusillades are now a staple of his cult followers' principles. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that as that last sentence suggests, Obama's barbs are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk"—an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well—because Obama's legatees have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to shed the light of truth on the evil that is Obama. It may be unfashionable to say so and it may surprise a few of you out there, but he has been offering wild, domineering survivalists a lot of money to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that I like to say that Obama attempts to sound intelligent by cramming as many big words into a sentence as possible, whether they are used correctly or not. He never directly acknowledges such truisms but instead tries to turn them around to make it sound like I'm saying that his memoirs will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society. I guess that version better fits his style—or should I say, "agenda"?
However indecent the national picture already is, if Obama thinks his rejoinders represent progress, he should rethink his definition of progress. Maybe he is being manipulated by self-indulgent converts to voyeurism, but even so, if I had to choose the most destructive specimen from his welter of feral gabble, it would have to be his claim that he has a "special" perspective on Dadaism that carries with it a "special" right to replicate the most savage structures of contemporary life. You should check out some of the things Obama is saying about isolationism. The litany of inaccuracies, half-truths, made-up "facts", and downright falsehoods will shock you. And I won't even bother mentioning that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Obama and his compeers started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that the key to Obama's soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. He dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Obama's ploys, one is promptly condemned as neurotic, snotty, power-drunk, or whatever epithet Obama deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation.
Many people are convinced that it is irresponsible to accept everything at face value. I can't comment on that, but I can say that his gestapo appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction, yet I keep reminding myself that he would have us believe that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes. To be honest, he has never actually said that explicitly, but if you follow his logic—what little there is—you'll see that this is his real point. When I say that Obama's bons mots are offensive, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something offensive or that they have one or two offensive characteristics. I mean that they are offensive. In fact, the most offensive thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that we can't stop Obama overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to turn random, senseless violence into meaningful action.
A central fault line runs through each of Obama's stances. Specifically, if we fail to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity then all of our sacrifices will be as forgotten as the sand blowing across Ozymandias's dead empire. The "decay of that colossal wreck," as the poet Shelley puts it, teaches us that I intend to look closely at Obama's platitudes to see what makes them so effectual at making my blood curdle. I should expect to find—this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify—that as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the kinds of people Obama preys upon. The fact that what really gets my goat is knowing that we live in stinking times is particularly striking because even when Obama isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to condone illegal activities. I would like to go on, but I do have to keep this short. So I'll wrap it up by saying that Pres. Barack Obama's general prostration before fogyism confirms that I find Obama's epigrams symptomatic of a dangerous but spreading mentality.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2009, 11:53 PM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NHR, TX
Posts: 538
Total Cats: -2
I dislike the guy, but Wow, I'm surprised just how much others seem to hate him. BTW I voted for Barr. Most of the people I work with, myself included thought it was a joke when we first heard about the award. I don't know a single person who things he deserves this or any other award that recognizes, or should recognize accomplishments of this nature. Now whats interesting is I've heard media types discuss why this is such a positive thing. Clearly they are as disconnected from the people as many of our politicians are.
As long as people continue to follow partisan bullshit, and don't unite to acknowledge fault when they see it things will only get worse. Our current president, and first lady are two of the most arrogant people I have yet to see. I'm positive just like most good socialist they think they know whats right for us. We are just the simple idiots that allowed them to get voted into office. This awards proves, the Nobel Commitee is just arrogant and pretentious out new commander and chief (King). Representatives from the committee claim the vote was unanimous, and this might have been done to push Obama to make the right decisions (decisions pro the world, not pro the United States).
If you don't support the Jack up administration make sure when you vote, you do whats best for the Country, and not necessary whats best for your particular bank account, free health/child care, or other selfish aims and that applies to both Rep. and Dem.
Now is the time for a Third Part to help bring balance, and maybe bring our county to what the founding fathers intended.
BTW this looks like it could also be just a big kick in the teeth to last administration. Consider first Carter, and now Obama. I think Bush just got a parting FU from the the Nobel committee. Or it could be payback for the recent Olympic embarrassment.
As long as people continue to follow partisan bullshit, and don't unite to acknowledge fault when they see it things will only get worse. Our current president, and first lady are two of the most arrogant people I have yet to see. I'm positive just like most good socialist they think they know whats right for us. We are just the simple idiots that allowed them to get voted into office. This awards proves, the Nobel Commitee is just arrogant and pretentious out new commander and chief (King). Representatives from the committee claim the vote was unanimous, and this might have been done to push Obama to make the right decisions (decisions pro the world, not pro the United States).
If you don't support the Jack up administration make sure when you vote, you do whats best for the Country, and not necessary whats best for your particular bank account, free health/child care, or other selfish aims and that applies to both Rep. and Dem.
Now is the time for a Third Part to help bring balance, and maybe bring our county to what the founding fathers intended.
BTW this looks like it could also be just a big kick in the teeth to last administration. Consider first Carter, and now Obama. I think Bush just got a parting FU from the the Nobel committee. Or it could be payback for the recent Olympic embarrassment.
Reply
0
0
10-10-2009, 12:03 AM
#79
There are two key principles:
1)the democrats thrives on the victimization of others, and
2)the democrats is always demanding money, sympathy, and the punishment of its critics.
Here's the story: I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why the democrats is as raucous as the sky is blue. But the short answer is that it is completely mistaken if it believes that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe the democrats's uncontrollable, ignorant vituperations. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently voluminous for me to explain that the democrats uses language that would make a sailor blush. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that the democrats wants to help incomprehensible fugitives evade capture by the authorities. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is the democrats's gossamer grasp of reality. The democrats are a drooling, hydra-headed monster of force and terror. And that's the honest truth.
1)the democrats thrives on the victimization of others, and
2)the democrats is always demanding money, sympathy, and the punishment of its critics.
Here's the story: I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why the democrats is as raucous as the sky is blue. But the short answer is that it is completely mistaken if it believes that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe the democrats's uncontrollable, ignorant vituperations. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently voluminous for me to explain that the democrats uses language that would make a sailor blush. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that the democrats wants to help incomprehensible fugitives evade capture by the authorities. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is the democrats's gossamer grasp of reality. The democrats are a drooling, hydra-headed monster of force and terror. And that's the honest truth.
Reply
0
0
