Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
Figured I'd start this thread before Merc could. :)
Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
OSLO – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.
Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama woke up to the news a little before 6 a.m. EDT. The White House had no immediate comment on the announcement, which took the administration by surprise.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee decided not to inform Obama before the announcement because it didn't want to wake him up, committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said.
"Waking up a president in the middle of the night, this isn't really something you do," Jagland said.
Honestly, I think it's ballsy, but ultimately meaningless. I will note that they sure do spend a lot of time using the prize as a political slap in the face to George W. Bush--first Jimmy Carter in 2002, then Al Gore in 2005, and now Barack Obama.
The world has spoken.
Excuse me now, I must go worship at the shrine I've erected.
:lol:
Its total BS. He hasn't "done" anything. The politicization of "the Prize" is now complete.
Oh goody, more fodder for incessant bitching from the wackos. ;)
This is gonna be great, I knew it would the minute I saw the article on CNN.com this morning, but I think I'll just watch from afar now.
I just had to gloat, just once, well...twice.
One last thing...hahahhahahahaaaa!
:lol2:
What's he gonna do with the money?
I haven't seen him flash a single peace-sign, but I am happy to give him a prize just for not being GWB.
Seriously, America, this is the world saying we like you again. Group hug?
I am happy to give him a prize just for not being GWB.
Thats exactly the point - Its not what he's done, its who he isn't. Way to go world! Since when is that what the Nobel Peace Prize is about?
[COLOR="White"]ok one more[/COLOR]
Jagland said the decision was "unanimous" and came with ease.
He rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.htmlOh goody, more fodder for incessant bitching from the wackos. ;)
...
Bitchbitchbitchbitch Hey....... wait a minute....
Thats exactly the point - Its not what he's done, its who he isn't. Way to go world! Since when is that what the Nobel Peace Prize is about?
Leave it to you to turn a positive into a negative. :headshake
Wonderful, congratulations Mr Obama.
BUT, I still have to go to work today... and so do you, Mr President.
Why does spellcheck want to change Obama to ABM? It's the peace prize, damnit. :eyebrow:
[COLOR="White"]ok one more[/COLOR]
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html
Hu hu ... his name is Jagland.[/butthead]
I would frist liike to say congrats to Mr. President. It is a fine honor to receive. To bad that getting it really cheapens it for all those who came before him and actually did something to receive it. I listened to NPR on the way to work and they said that he became President 2 weeks before the deadline for submission for the award. So the Junior U. S. Senator Obama who never completed his first term in office and had just 143 days of experience in the Senate, 2 weeks before the deadline someone submits his name, and with all of 9 months of experience as President he gets the Noble Peace Prize. What a joke.:lol:
But in the end you can't undo what has been done. So congrats to him. :thumb:
I wonder if he will give the money to ACORN? :)
I voted for Obama, and I think he's going to be a great leader.
But this is nuts. The guy is just getting started. Give it to the guy building schools in Afghanistan or the guys doing anger management in Palestine. If there is no one more worthy of the honor, don't give it out. This just trivializes it.
I'd say the prize is meant for those Americans who realized that we couldn't continue to claim exemption from standards of international conduct and still claim ethical leadership. Some pretty dubious domestic policy from the Democrats in Congress is the cost of a sane foreign policy and I believe it is worth it for the international group hug.
So I guess the Nobel committee is back to being our BFFs again. I'm a big ole' Obamaphile, but this is just silly.
Perhaps they should have given the damn prize to the American voters, since that's who they seem to be recognizing.
Since World War II, the Peace Prize has principally been awarded to honour efforts in four main areas: arms control and disarmament, peace negotiation, democracy and human rights, and work aimed at creating a better organized and more peaceful world.
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/about_peaceprize/history/
This isn't Time Magazine, folks. It isn't awarded to "the people" or "the soldiers." It's not the "What Have You Done as President" prize. It's not the "Gee, What Do You Americans Think?" prize. It's the Nobel Peace Prize. As we have seen, the concept of peace isn't exactly a science. The committee decided Obama has shown committment to creating a better organized and more peaceful world.
This looks good for us, the USA. Remember us? Shouldn't we quit nitpicking and be happy that at least some of the world no longer hates us?
Nah, negative spin the fucker. When you're done, please list all requirements in the Peace Prize manual that the committee ignored.
A flow chart would be helpful.
Since World War II, the Peace Prize has principally been awarded to honour efforts... ~snip~
Since he was only is office two weeks when he was nominated, it seems it was based on campaign promises rather than
efforts.
I really think this is more about dising Bush and the Europeans making a statement about the role they hope the US will play in the future. Nice gesture but so far off the mark. I want to hear Obama speak about it. I mean who wouldn't want such an award to recognize all their great accomplishments and life long attempts to make the world a better place....
When you're done, please list all requirements in the Peace Prize manual that the committee ignored.
Having actually accomplished something?
I don't doubt that Mr. Obama
will accomplish many things, but
has he done so yet?
Should they award the Prize in Physics to a bright 16-year old who
might grow up to be the next Einstein? No, it's awarded to someone who, through the lens of history, has made a significant contribution to Physics and humanity. It's supposed to be the crowning achievement of a long and glorious career, not a yearbook vote for "Most Likely to Succeed".
Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.
More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j1_QF_M_HvZAOpRa9UGcm5CbA-1gD9B7HDR80Maybe they are trying to dissuade him from sending more troops to Afghanistan? :litebulb:
Well good on Obama. He was humble in his speech.
This is the Nobel I'm slightly smarter and better then you prize. But they gave the prize to Arafat. They gave the prize to Kissinger. It's a meaningless prize.
Not meaningless to the Republicans. :rolleyes:
Not meaningless to the Republicans. :rolleyes:
Rebulickins are just unhappy because the only Americans eligible have to be a Demoncrat or a liberal. ;) And not meaningless to a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian Parliament. I guess UT is right, pretty unimportant in the greater scheme of things. Completely politicized.
[SIZE="4"]Kanye's reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize...[/SIZE]
Al Gore: got one. Ghandi: never did.
Since it's meaningless, no one should really care who got it...past, present, or who will get it in the future.
It may not play well in some quarters, but IMO, it is an honor, even if symbolic.
But still, you’re nothing in this town until you have a national airport and the largest federal office building in the city named in your honor, as well as bills introduced by your buddies in Congress every session to have your bust added to Mt Rushmore and your image to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill.
The only thing I can liken it to is naming the rookie who has only played in two games to the Baseball Hall of Fame. It is totally absurd. It is just another case of style over substance.
Bush totally should have gotten the award.:blush:
He was nominated in 2002.
I believe in world peace, and I've talked to a few friends about how someone some day may accomplish world peace (or not)......
I can haz medal?
lol
I won the Strawberry Festival Peace Prize once!
:)
I won the Pea Festival Strawberry Prize........
I won the Soup Festival for Whirled Peas.
Peace porridge hot
Peace porridge cold...
;)
Isaac Hayes should have won before Obama. 1) He was black, 2) He said pretty words written by someone else that gave hope to millions[COLOR="White"] of horny people[/COLOR], 3) Huh, I can't think of a third reason for either of them.
This is just another political blowjob.
I voted for Obama. I like Obama. I think it's silly that he got this prize.
I think it's the Nobel people trying to nudge him towards closing Gitmo and ending Afghanistan quickly, and also snubbing Bush.
I'm all for that International Group Hug!
I don't know how I feel about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, kinda apathetic about it. I hope he gives the money to a good charity (like the deficit!)
His money though, can do what he likes.
Ah just found:
Obama will travel to Oslo, Norway, in December to accept the award, including a $1.4 million prize. The White House said Obama will donate the entire amount to charity.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_nobelSort of a crosspost:
Huffpo is agreeing with me on this. Is there a Smilie sufficiently strange for that one? {clicks Smilies} Aw, fuggit. :eek:
Two threads to braid -- yeah, I know it takes three skeins to make a braid but work with me here...
I would have voted for
Pete Seeger.
The consolation with the Obama award may be that it will incite those leftists teachers who control the education system to force our kids to sing more songs about Obama at the start of every school day. :D
Avowed Communists killing Fascists is just one totalitarianism competing with another. Both of 'em collectivist. They were not antitheses, they were competitors for the hearts and minds of the tyrannical.
I don't doubt that Mr. Obama will accomplish many things, but has he done so yet?
Given the kind of accomplishments he's after making, he
shouldn't. That will serve the Republic well. What he wants will not.
I would have loved to see Pete
Seeger get the award. He did a huge environmental clean-up along the Hudson River, among other things and for being a great musician.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloop_ClearwaterAll this talk about "Obama hasn't achieved anything".
Well what has Aung San Suu Kyi achieved? SFA. Sat at home on her ass all the time, not even in a real prison like Mandela.
Sharon/Arafat? Oh sure, there's peace a plenty in the Middle East. Not.
The ILO? There are still sweatshops and slaves today.
Actually achieving stuff does not seem to be a requirement. Making the world feel warm and fuzzy is the thing, I think.
All we are saying, is give peace a chance.
:lol:
I just love watching people writhe. Now you know how we felt for 8 years.
He has given a lot of people in the world hope that there's someone in charge thinking with their brain, not their gonads, when it comes to peace. That is quite an accomplishment.
I just love watching people writhe. Now you know how we felt for 8 years.
I really doubt people are "writhing", I mean really. We could have done much worse if McCain were elected.
Well, if anyone would bother to read what I posted about the intent of the award, there would be so much less gnashing of teeth.
The award has been called meaningless. Fine. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is, if it's so meaningless, why are people so pissed off?
Huckabee reminded his constituents that to bitch about this would only make them look petty. Why stop now? He said it would be better to ask what Obama has done? Fair enough...until you actually pay attention to what the award is supposed to be about. Do I think it means much? Well, I believe in ideals, and what could be accomplished if we set our minds to it. I think this bestowment paves the way for honoring better ideas about what could really happen, if everyone wasn't so worried about someone else pissing in their spot. Arf.
Well, if anyone would bother to read what I posted about the intent of the award, there would be so much less gnashing of teeth.
The award has been called meaningless. Fine. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is, if it's so meaningless, why are people so pissed off?
Because now it is much more meaningless. :D
Given the kind of accomplishments he's after making, he shouldn't. That will serve the Republic well. What he wants will not.
Ooooh, a thumbs down from UG. Now I
know he deserves it.:D
Seriously, I think it's way too soon. Obama had the same advantage an average looking girl does going to the beach with her ugly best friend - people automatically think shes prettier than they would if she were alone.
Following the Bush/Cheney act, all Obama had to do was show that he could tie his shoelaces and chew gum at the same time.
Americans are so egocentric.
Because now it is much more meaningless. :D
I don't agree.
Please list all the recipients (easily googled) and explain to me the meaning of each. In triplicate.
The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:
The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
:eyebrow:
I don't agree.
Please list all the recipients (easily googled) and explain to me the meaning of each. In triplicate.
The thing speaks for itself. No need for all that work.
He was in office for a whole two weeks when he was nominated.:eyebrow:
Still better him than, say Ahmajinedad. :eek:
During all of the chaos involving momwolf, this is the one news story that I heard yesterday.
Well, that and Archbishop Dougherty and Northeast Catholic closing.
I had to check my calendar to make sure that it was October 9th, not April 1st.
He was in office for a whole two weeks when he was nominated.:eyebrow:
Still better him than, say Ahmajinedad. :eek:
Interestingly, I think that had Ahmajinedad won the same people who mindlessly praise Obama would have been equally joyous.
(Incidentally, what about him being Jewish, eh? you think he's a sleeper who is there to make sure that the Apocalypse comes to pass in this generation? Speaking of which this whole Obama/Peace Prize thing ... could be evidence of my theory that he is the Biblical Antichrist).
I need more sleep. The stress is getting to me.
Interestingly, I think that had Ahmajinedad won the same people who mindlessly praise Obama would have been equally joyous. ....
I don't think so.:headshake
I'm amused that so many anti-Obama-[strike]ans[/strike]-ites appear to blame Obama for this, as though
he nominated
himself, then
he gave
himself the award. It seems to me that he was a victim of circumstances!:p The prize was forced on him because he's half African American. This never would have happened to a fully European American man. ;)
This is the Nobel I'm slightly smarter and better then you prize. But they gave the prize to Arafat. They gave the prize to Kissinger. It's a meaningless prize.
Not always meaningless (i.e. Nelson Mandela), but F. W. De Klerk can be added to the Arafat, Kissinger questionable list of winners.
I really don't care, because it(Nobel Prize) has become irrelevant. But I do care about the world hug. I get the heeby geebies thinking about the STDs that crowd would transmit.
I really don't care, because it(Nobel Prize) has become irrelevant. But I do care about the world hug. I get the heeby geebies thinking about the STDs that crowd would transmit.
If you're worried about STDs from a hug, then you're doing it wrong.;)
I'm amused that so many anti-Obama-[strike]ans[/strike]-ites appear to blame Obama for this,
Bullshit! Flag!
Bullshit! Flag!
Upon further review, there is no foul.
??? I haven't seen anyone blaming Obama. There are many who don't think it is/was deserved, but no one actually blaming him.
Booth review - The play stands.
Figured I'd start this thread before Merc could. :)
Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
Honestly, I think it's ballsy, but ultimately meaningless. I will note that they sure do spend a lot of time using the prize as a political slap in the face to George W. Bush--first Jimmy Carter in 2002, then Al Gore in 2005, and now Barack Obama.
I don't think any of those was a slap in the face to George W. Bush. All of these men did a lot to earn their Nobel Prizes, especially Al Gore for exposing that man-made global warming isn't a theory, an idea, a concept, or as idiots claim.... a fraud, a hoax, etc. Man-made global warming is an indisputable scientific fact. It is an undeniable and irrefutable truth that we must take drastic action to fix, or face our own destruction.
Contrary to what some idiots claim, Barack Obama actually has done a lot to promote peace in the world through what he's already done in such a short time. Merely reversing the horrific foreign policy of the Bush administration should earn him this, but ordering the closure of Gitmo, coming out against the use of torture for interrogation, ending the Iraq war, and bringing home or re-assigning most of the troops that were there, choosing to talk with other nations rather than telling them to comply or get sanctions and bombs, etc.
The actions of President Obama promote peace both here and abroad, including his valuable work on health care reform in America.
The true colors of these scumbag neocons really shows when the President of America wins the Nobel Peace Prize and rather than saying, "Hooray, a sitting American president won the single most prestigious, important, and meaningful honor on earth!!!" and being happy for America, they talk shit about him. They did the same thing when he tried to bring the Olympics to America, including the thousands of jobs, billions of dollars, international prestige and good will, etc. They hoped that another country would get it and cheered when America didn't.
Clearly these idiots hate President Obama more than they love America. They are like the so-called Palestinian people who hate Jews more than they love their own children. They'd cut off their nose just to spite their face. They are bitter, nasty, pathetic, and unpatriotic losers.
The true colors of these scumbag neocons really shows when the President of America wins the Nobel Peace Prize and rather than saying, "Hooray, a sitting American president won the single most prestigious, important, and meaningful honor on earth!!!" and being happy for America, they talk shit about him. They did the same thing when he tried to bring the Olympics to America, including the thousands of jobs, billions of dollars, international prestige and good will, etc. They hoped that another country would get it and cheered when America didn't.
Clearly these idiots hate President Obama more than they love America. They are like the so-called Palestinian people who hate Jews more than they love their own children. They'd cut off their nose just to spite their face. They are bitter, nasty, pathetic, and unpatriotic losers.
Yeah, that's how I feel. Nice post Radar.
Thanks Shawnee. These guys want President Obama fail at anything so badly, they don't care whether America loses, as long as he loses too.
I've said that all along. To me, that is the ultimate in illness, that being right is more important than hoping this will be the best thing for our country, for our progeny, for us. No, we'd rather see "fail" because we get to say "I told you so." Sad, is what that attitude is.
I don't think any of those was a slap in the face to George W. Bush... Merely reversing the horrific foreign policy of the Bush administration should earn him this,
See what you did there?
See what you did there?
You might have a point if awarding a peace prize to a man that reverses the foreign policy of a war monger who started unwarranted, unprovoked, unreasonable, and unconstitutional wars of aggression against nations that posed no harm to our own were a slap in the face of that war monger. It is not.
Rewarding someone for reversing failed policies isn't a slap in the face of the person who made the failed policies. It is merely kudos to the person who got us back on the right track. In this case, it's kudos to the person who is taking steps to make less enemies, to calm existing enemies caused by the previous administration, and to take a more reasonable and intelligent approach to foreign relations. In other words, the Nobel Peace Prize went to a deserving person who has taken real steps toward increasing World Peace.
If someone would be kind enough to tell me...
Is there anyone (anyone at all) who thinks this was a good idea?
I mean, they were ripping him a new asshole on the day this was announced--and that was on NPR!
So far as I can tell, there's me, Shawnee, and Radar who think it was.
From what I've seen in the news, Obama's diplomatic efforts thus far have already gone a long way to repairing the damage that Bush and his administration had inflicted on the world. He's been spending a lot of time overseas talking with various people, and apparently, it's made a great impression. There's really no reason I can think of not to be happy about it.
Haven't you heard?
When Obama went over there, they said, Look Dude, don't be greedy, it's either the Olympics or Nobel Prize, you can't have both.
Obama said, Fuck Chicago, show me the money. :lol2:
From what I've seen in the news, Obama's diplomatic efforts thus far have already gone a long way to repairing the damage that Bush and his administration had inflicted on the world.
True dat.
All of that is true and some of what Obama ha done have made positive changes in the world view. He was nominated a long time ago and that is the only issue I have. What exactly was he nominated for at that point in time, not the current one.
Since World War II, the Peace Prize has principally been awarded to honour efforts in four main areas: arms control and disarmament, peace negotiation, democracy and human rights, and work aimed at creating a better organized and more peaceful world.
Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.
More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments
Sigh.
Please, by all means, continue :bitching:
(the peace prize should be awarded) to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
If someone would be kind enough to tell me...
Is there anyone (anyone at all) who thinks this was a good idea?
I mean, they were ripping him a new asshole on the day this was announced--and that was on NPR!
I, and many others, including the Nobel Prize committee think it was a good idea. President Obama deserved the honor for the work he's already done to promote peace throughout the world.
It not only honors the work he's done, it will keep the world's attention on him to ensure that he keeps his promises for further change in America's long failed foreign policy. It will keep President Obama's feet to the fire.
All of that is true and some of what Obama ha done have made positive changes in the world view. He was nominated a long time ago and that is the only issue I have. What exactly was he nominated for at that point in time, not the current one.
He was nominated in February with tons of other people, but the voting wasn't until September.
And so he has. "The most or best work..." Didn't say y'all had to like the work.
While I still think it is a stretch, I can see compelling reasons for the award.
In the past, it has often been based on policies and promises rather than results and a strong case can be made that Obama's campaign promises and early policies promoted a set of values that certainly meet the objectives of the award.
I further agree with Radar that the mocking of the award by many on the right, like the cheering when Chicago lost the Olympic bid, serves no purpose other than to pander to the conservative republican base.
You mean the critics are playing......... wait for it.................... base-ball. :rolleyes:
There's been as much mocking from the center and left, and I'm not sure it's true that such mockery is only disingenuous when it emits from the right. The mockery is directed at the selection committee, less so at Obama.
The squirrelly selection process exhibited by the Nobel Peace Prize selection committee over the years, decades actually, has served to render the award virtually meaningless. This becomes particularly graphic when you review the resumes of those who weren't selected in a given year. Obama ought not receive criticism in that there is no evidence he sought or lobbied for this award.
Underscoring the mockery, regardless of from whence it comes on the political spectrum, is growing resentment of the way virtually everything is becoming politicized and thereby rendered meaningless.
Where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you...
America, and the rest of the world, needs and seeks heroes. Unfortunately, we can remove "Nobel Peace Prize" from the list of potential identifiers.
You mean the critics are playing......... wait for it.................... base-ball. :rolleyes:
"There's no crying in baseball"
Nor should there be childish whining when the other team (and the league as a whole) wins.
Or cheering when the other team (and the league) lose (the olympic bid) to a foreign team.
There's been as much mocking from the center and left, and I'm not sure it's true that such mockery is only disingenuous when it emits from the right. The mockery is directed at the selection committee, less so at Obama.
I've seen justifiable questioning and skepticism and criticism from across the spectrum.
The childish and petulant mocking has been much more limited.
From what I've seen in the news, Obama's diplomatic efforts thus far have already gone a long way to repairing the damage that Bush and his administration had inflicted on the world. He's been spending a lot of time overseas talking with various people, and apparently, it's made a great impression. There's really no reason I can think of not to be happy about it.
I didn't think the prize was designed to reward nations for improving their "image" in the world.
Nice speeches and
vaporware are nice, but that's what politicians do. When the same guy that made that "great impression" does something like snub the Dalai Lama to appease the Chinese, are we supposed to think this is champion of human rights? It makes me think, maybe he should have gotten a prize for writing great-sounding speeches...
but he didn't write them Flint.
I'd like to end world hunger, bring about world peace, find homes for all the orphaned puppies and kittens and all the little chirruns, too.
Nominations for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize are due in by February 1, 2010. PM me for last name and other required information.
but he didn't write them Flint.
Hey, you mean Bush could have had someone else writing his speeches all along and he wouldn't have looked like a complete dumbass? You mean he might have looked kind of intelligent? You mean everyone else on earth wouldn't have pointed and laughed and said "wtF were those Americans thinking?" Oh well, hindsight being 20/20 and all, or in Bush's case maybe .020/.020 cents.
:lol:
I'd like to end world hunger, bring about world peace, find homes for all the orphaned puppies and kittens and all the little chirruns, too.
Nominations for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize are due in by February 1, 2010. PM me for last name and other required information.
You were beat to that joke, by Queenie. See post # 33. But thanks for playing along at home!
Joke? I was quite serious.
Until someone offers to actually nominate you! Then you're askeered! :)
How could I fail to be nominated with good intentions such an end to world hunger, a world at peace, and homes for orphaned puppies, kittens, and children.
You underestimate how much Norwegians like puppies.
You aren't Obama!
Sorry shaw, I couldn't resist.
Hey, you mean Bush could have had someone else writing his speeches all along ...
He did, and you damn well know it. The engrish ranuage wasn't his strong suit.
How could I fail to be nominated with good intentions such an end to world hunger, a world at peace, and homes for orphaned puppies, kittens, and children.
You underestimate how much Norwegians like puppies.
If this is Henry Kissinger, you've already won once, you prize-glutton.
Psst - The Nobel Foundation is based in Sweden, not Norway. You have to know that to win.;)
It makes me think, maybe he should have gotten a prize for writing great-sounding speeches...
but he didn't write them Flint.
It makes me think, maybe he should have gotten a prize for...
having a nice speaking voice???I'm up for the Nobel Brouhaha Prize.
I'm up for the Nobel Brouhaha Prize.
How about the Nobel Leebutton Prize?
The prize was forced on him because he's half African American. This never would have happened to a fully European American man.
:lol2:
How about the Nobel Leebutton Prize?
Quit pushin' mah buttons.
Hey, you mean Bush could have had someone else writing his speeches all along and he wouldn't have looked like a complete dumbass?
No. I am not sure he could read, we already know about his poor speaking skills. :3eye:
Yabbut, didn't he read something about goats, once? Where's tw? :)
Psst - The Nobel Foundation is based in Sweden, not Norway. You have to know that to win.;)
wikipee:
"It is also unclear why Nobel wished the Peace Prize to be administered in Norway. The Norwegian Nobel Committee speculates that Norway may have been better suited to awarding the prize as it did not have the same militaristic traditions as Sweden and that at the end of the nineteenth century the Norwegian parliament had become closely involved in the Inter-Parliamentary Union's efforts to resolve conflicts through mediation and arbitration."
This explains why I have Albert Einstein's support for the award and you do not. Hah!
http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/directory_org_090915.pdf
Stockholm. That be in Sweden, no?
Of course, I wouldn't want to cast aspersions at Wikipedia!
There are many Nobel prizes, of course - economics, science, etc. - and the overall Nobel Foundation is in Sweden, but the Peace Prize selection committee operates out of Norway.
"All Nobel Prizes are awarded in Stockholm, Sweden, except for the Nobel Peace Prize, which is awarded in Oslo, Norway."
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/shortfacts.htmlAhhh, jase, now I see.
--Inga
I wouldn't belabor the point except to the extent that I've received an inside tip that the selection committee is impressed with multiple nominations of the same individual or organization. I wouldn't want you mailing your nomination of me to the wrong city.
Yea, from what I have heard Hamid Karzai was Obama's campaign manager to win the nomination for the Peace Prize. Maybe that is why he is waiting so long to send those needed troops to Afghanistan...
Yea, from what I have heard Hamid Karzai was Obama's campaign manager to win the nomination for the Peace Prize. Maybe that is why he is waiting so long to send those needed troops to Afghanistan...
:p
What ARE you smokin', dude?
We overlooked the obvious...
:D ok, that's one thing. What else? :)
"Just to fuck with conservatives, Obama should give the Nobel Prize money to ACORN."--Lee Papa (The Rude Pundit)
I can imagine the posts if Obama had NOT won the Nobel Peace Prize:
Classicman: "That Liberal can't win his way out of a paper bag"
Merc: "My drill sargeant could have won the peace prize but that loser Obama couldn't"
tw: "upper management mba it was bush's fault"
UG: "He didn't win because he wasn't packing. Oh, and liberals are out to enslave the world"
:lol:
The Unknown Dwellar: "It's just really stoopid that the stoopid guy who is runing are world is to stoopid to win the Noble prize thing. Oh and hes a black guy so hes even more stoopid for not wining.
"Just to fuck with conservatives, Obama should give the Nobel Prize money to ACORN."--Lee Papa (The Rude Pundit)
That would be awesome!! They wouldn't even have to pay tax on it.
My scan of the conservative blogosphere (blogosfear?) reveals a trend towards happiness on conservatives' part over the award based on the idea it forces one to consider what exactly he won it for, what precisely his peace achievements are. They feel this leads to a "wtf?" assessment from which Obama emerges damaged. There is consistency in the ridicule, though it fluxuates between ridiculing Obama, the Nobel Foundation, and/or both.
My scan of the liberal blogosphere reveals reactions all over the road, from pride over a deserving, well-thought out award to responses indiscernible from the conservative reactions.
The implication is clear: Philadelphia will win the Stanley Cup this season.
....The implication is clear: Philadelphia will win the Stanley Cup this season.
And that's really all that matters! :thumb:
"Just to fuck with conservatives, Obama should give the Nobel Prize money to ACORN."--Lee Papa (The Rude Pundit)
I think that would be a GREAT idea! Man I could only wish... :D
I can imagine the posts if Obama had NOT won the Nobel Peace Prize:
Classicman: "That Liberal can't win his way out of a paper bag"
Merc: "My drill sargeant could have won the peace prize but that loser Obama couldn't"
tw: "upper management mba it was bush's fault"
UG: "He didn't win because he wasn't packing. Oh, and liberals are out to enslave the world"
I can imagine the posts if Obama had NOT won the Nobel Peace Prize:
Spexxvet: "They wouldn't let him win it because he's black."
The implication is clear: Philadelphia will win the Stanley Cup this season.
The Stanley Cup is a lordly "foreign" prize and an insidious attempt to indoctrinate us into the peace loving, national health care loving ways of our northern neighbors
"That's pretty amazing, winning the Nobel Peace Prize," Jay Leno said. "Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far ... winning the Nobel Peace Prize."
The Times quotes Bob Lichter, "Is there now a caricature taking hold of a man more celebrated than accomplished? The danger is that Mr. Obama is going to be defined by inaction and not living up to expectations," he said.
SNL skit:
[COLOR="Blue"]Obama has done nothing[/COLOR]Jimmy Carter, Yasur Arafat, Al Gore, Barack Obama. Ha ha ha ha ha. Watch the Oscars for the winner. Another useless awards show.
I can't find the link just now, but apparently people are going to ESPN's ongoing fan Vote For The Heisman! site and voting for Barack Obama.
Nobel Peace Prize? Eh. But if he wins the Heisman, I'll be impressed.
I can't find the link just now, but apparently people are going to ESPN's ongoing fan Vote For The Heisman! site and voting for Barack Obama.
Nobel Peace Prize? Eh. But if he wins the Heisman, I'll be impressed.
Shouldn't we be trying to get him to win him the "I wish I was Micheal Jordan Award"? The round ball is more his thing.
For the tinfoil hat crowd, the following may prove interesting. BTW its from a Muslim based blog for whatever that may be worth:
"However, all of this is really beside the point, since it assumes that the Nobel Prize remains an "award" when in fact it is no such thing. It is actually a shrewd vehicle for influencing the power elite, and as such represents an attempt to lobby Obama and influence him over the course of his next term(s). The decsion of who gets a Nobel Peace Prize, and just as importantly who doesn't, is an explicit editorial statement. That President Bush was not awarded one* was a rebuke of the unilateral, pre-emptive, diplomacy-averse doctrine that bears his name. But with Obama, it is an attempt to shape the doctrine yet to be." - blog.beliefnet.com
Jimmy Carter, Yasur Arafat, Al Gore, Barack Obama. Ha ha ha ha ha. Watch the Oscars for the winner. Another useless awards show.
All of those people, including Yassir Arafat, are more accomplished and important than a useless turd like you will ever be.
Jimmy Carter is practically a saint. His awards for humanitarian efforts, environmentalism, disarmament and development, arbitration, and the promotion of non-violence and peace include...
[LIST]
[*]Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999
[*]Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Others include:
[*]Freedom of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne, England, 1977
[*]Silver Buffalo Award, Boy Scouts of America, 1978
[*]Gold medal, International Institute for Human Rights, 1979
[*]International Mediation medal, American Arbitration Association, 1979
[*]Martin Luther King, Jr., Nonviolent Peace Prize, 1979
[*]International Human Rights Award, Synagogue Council of America, 1979
[*]Conservationist of the Year Award, 1979
[*]Harry S. Truman Public Service Award, 1981
[*]Ansel Adams Conservation Award, Wilderness Society, 1982
[*]Human Rights Award, International League of Human Rights, 1983
[*]World Methodist Peace Award, 1985
[*]Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, 1987
[*]Edwin C. Whitehead Award, National Center for Health Education, 1989
[*]Jefferson Award, American Institute of Public Service, 1990
[*]Liberty Medal, National Constitution Center, 1990
[*]Spirit of America Award, National Council for the Social Studies, 1990
[*]Physicians for Social Responsibility Award, 1991
[*]Aristotle Prize, Alexander S. Onassis Foundation, 1991
[*]W. Averell Harriman Democracy Award, National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, 1992
[*]Spark M. Matsunaga Medal of Peace, US Institute of Peace, 1993
[*]Humanitarian Award, CARE International, 1993
[*]Conservationist of the Year Medal, National Wildlife Federation, 1993
[*]Rotary Award for World Understanding, 1994
[*]J. William Fulbright Prize for International Understanding, 1994
[*]National Civil Rights Museum Freedom Award, 1994
[*]UNESCO Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize, 1994
[*]Great Cross of the Order of Vasco Nunéz de Balboa, Panama, 1995
[*]Bishop John T. Walker Distinguished Humanitarian Award, Africare, 1996
[*]Humanitarian of the Year, GQ Awards, 1996
[*]Kiwanis International Humanitarian Award, 1996
[*]Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development, 1997
[*]Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter Awards for Humanitarian Contributions to the Health of Humankind, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, 1997
[*]United Nations Human Rights Award, 1998
[*]The Hoover Medal, 1998
[*]The Delta Prize for Global Understanding, University of Georgia, 1999
[*]International Child Survival Award, UNICEF Atlanta, 1999
[*]William Penn Mott, Jr., Park Leadership Award, National Parks Conservation Association, 2000
[*]Zayed International Prize for the Environment, 2001
[*]Jonathan M. Daniels Humanitarian Award, VMI, 2001
[*]Herbert Hoover Humanitarian Award, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 2001
[*]Christopher Award, 2002
[*]Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album, National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, 2007[118]
[*]Berkeley Medal, University of California campus, May 2, 2007
[*]International Award for Excellence and Creativity, Palestinian Authority, 2009[119]
[*]Mahatma Gandhi Global Nonviolence Award, Mahatma Gandhi Center for Global Nonviolence, James Madison University (to be awarded September 21, 2009, in Harrisonburg, Virginia, and to be shared with his wife, Rosalynn Carter)
[/LIST]
Jimmy Carter has done more unselfish acts of kindness to improve the world than any 10 Republicans you can name combined.
Al Gore won the election for the presidency. He exposed the irrefutable, indisputable, scientific fact that man-made global warming is real in an accurate, truthful, honest, and scientifically sound movie that won an Acadamy Award, and he deservedly won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in bringing about international cooperation in dealing with something that is very likely to end all life on earth if nothing is done.
President Obama's efforts to close Gitmo, and reverse the horrible foreign policy of his treasonous predecessor while reaching out to other nations in an effort to repair our damaged reputation and moral standing in the world greatly increase peace in the world.
Yassir Arafat was the leader of a terrorist organization, but he's come the closest of any Palestinian leader to bringing lasting peace to that part of the world when he publicly stated that Israel had a right to exist in peace and security and he very nearly got Israel to agree to return to the 1949 armistice lines while recognizing a state of Palestine. This is the closest to true peace those people have ever been.
And you? You're just a loudmouthed douchebag with a chip on your shoulder and nothing to back it up.
I certianly would agree that it is hard to argue against the post-presidential (and vp) contributions of recent Democrats....the Carter Center, the Clinton Global Initiative, and the (Gore) Alliance for Climate Protection.
Poor Bill, the only one now without a Nobel.
Looking forward to the Bush post-presidential legacy.
It's official - - -
ESPN is reporting that President Obama watched 2 quarters of a football game and is being nominated for a Heisman Trophy.
Just a little levity folks.
Oh, and Carter is a saint! He is one of the most genuinely kind souls on the planet. Didn't like him much as a pres tho. I'm glad he's found his calling.
Carter was too nice to be president! I agree that he has done some wonderful things.
Hey, dude, we agreed on something. ;)
...Spexxvet: "They wouldn't let him win it because he's black."
HALF-African American. Get it right, nimrod.
The Stanley Cup is a lordly "foreign" prize and an insidious attempt to indoctrinate us into the peace loving, national health care loving ways of our northern neighbors
Nooooooooo!
It's official - - -
ESPN is reporting that President Obama watched 2 quarters of a football game and is being nominated for a Heisman Trophy.
Just a little levity folks...
That's not funny. He's gonna win the Heisman - just watch.
I can imagine the posts if Obama had NOT won the Nobel Peace Prize:
Spexxvet: "They wouldn't let him win it because he's half African-American."
For Spexxvet, fixed if for ya dickweed. ;)
At least he is one of the few true Americans that can claim to be a true African-American.:D
For Spexxvet, fixed if for ya dickweed. ;)
That's MISTER dickweed, to you.
At least he is one of the few true Americans that can claim to be a true African-American.:D
Not like that Panamanian, McCain.
That's MISTER dickweed, to you.
Ok, Mr. Dickweed.
Not like that Panamanian, McCain.
McCain is one of the few Dickweed's who are a bigger Dickweed than you. :D
I've got dickweed all over my lawn. I'm gonna have to take out the weed whacker.
Wouldn't it be meaner to call a guy a "weed-dick?"
Just sayin'
I've got dickweed all over my lawn. I'm gonna have to take out the weed whacker.
Or a
Dick Wacker :blush:
Hey Spexxvet you should check out this breaking news!!!!
BigHollywood:
by Andrew Leigh
September 10, 2010
The Nobel Prize Committee announced today that it is awarding the Prize in Medicine to Jimmy Duncan, a senior at Horace Greeley High School in Chappaqua, New York, for getting a 97 on his bio-chem final.
“The Committee felt that Master Duncan has shown great promise with his outstanding grades,” said Dr. Leif Quisling, chairperson of the Nobel Prize Committee. “It is our fervent hope that this award encourages him to do great things in the future, such as find a cure for cancer.”
The committee was first alerted to Jimmy Duncan when they came across a YouTube clip of Duncan’s class presentation on his career goals.
“We were particularly struck by his unbridled optimism,” said Dr. Quisling. “Duncan closed his passionate talk with these inspiring words: ’And we can end cancer in our lifetimes if we all work together really, really hard!’ It is exactly those kind of empty platitudes that impress this committee. Far more so than anything so gauche as actual achievement.”
Mr. Duncan was somewhat blase’ about the news. “I was lying in bed playing a little X-Box before heading off to school when my mom yelled, ‘Jimmy, you’ve got a phone call from Stockholm!’ It was pretty cool, yeah.”
Dr. Quisling acknowledged that the committee was inspired to award prizes prematurely after giving President Barack Obama a Nobel Peace Prize the year before, despite the fact that nominations had been closed only 11 days after he entered office.
“In Barack Obama’s case, we figured that if the American people were willing to hand over the U.S. presidency to someone who hasn’t accomplished much, why not give him the Nobel Peace Prize before he’s done anything, either?” Dr. Quisling said.
As for Jimmy Duncan, 17, he says he’s “psyched” about the Nobel Prize. “I should be a shoo-in now to get into Harvard,” he said.
“By the way, I’m not going pre-med anymore,” Duncan volunteered. ”Now that I’ve got the Nobel in Medicine, why bother? I’ll just invest my prize money in a diversified fund and I never have to work another day in my life. In fact, I may just skip Harvard and go to a party school. Arizona State, here I come!”
We contacted Dr. Quisling’s office for a comment on Duncan’s change in plans. Nobody returned our calls by press time.
Hey Spexxvet you should check out this breaking news!!!!
They only gave it to Jimmy Duncan because he's European-American. Oh, and because he's not George W. Bush. I'll be getting a Nobel soon. You? Not so soon.
They only gave it to Jimmy Duncan because he's European-American. Oh, and because he's not George W. Bush. I'll be getting a Nobel soon. You? Not so soon.
I don't need one of those. We all know now, with Obama getting one, it
really means nothing now.:p
Radar,
you were the one who said, last November, that you voted for Barack Obama -- on the grounds that he was not just the more libertarian candidate, but the "most libertarian." That's a matter of Cellar record, and of normal memory also. I know what that says about your ability at politics -- and you don't. The one person on the planet who thinks you have any standing to lecture anyone on politics is you -- and your declared vote declares you are wrong. You have an enormity of fault to admit, one quantifiable in the trillions of federal deficit dollars. Will you? I know what to expect. Libertarians are generally impelled to be economic literates, but what you did was vote your crazed anti-Republican prejudices, and dissemble as to the reasons. That for your integrity! No wonder you left the Libertarian Party; doubtless your departure was not attended with any regrets in any quarter -- you picked the Democratic Party to run with. Perhaps you should change your handle to Lampwick.
And unlike you, I was wise enough to vote against this Socialist Democrat. I expect to continue to outthink you.
05 Nov 08, #13 -- not a lucky number for you, old son.
UG: You couldn't outthink my dog.
I stand by what I said. There was no candidate who was more libertarian or who would have done anything to make government any smaller than it is right now on the ballot than President Obama. If you disagree, all you can offer is conjecture and opinion. And we all know your opinions are worthless, and you don't know a tenth of what I do when it comes to politics, civics, history, the Constitution, or pretty much anything else. You're just a useless fuck with a big mouth and nothing to back it up.
The health care reform proposed by President Obama is not socialist. If you claim it is, you prove your own stupidity.
Careful Radar, he's got a knife. :unsure:
Do we need to get MTP to tell you two to hug again?
All of those people, including Yassir Arafat, are more accomplished and important than a useless turd like you will ever be.
Jimmy Carter is practically a saint. His awards for humanitarian efforts, environmentalism, disarmament and development, arbitration, and the promotion of non-violence and peace include...
.Destroyed the US economy in only for years
.Aided and abetted the Islamic terrorist movement by kissing Khomeini's ass while disowning America's only Islamic ally
.Highest inflation rate in my lifetime(63 years)
.Weakened our military and intelligence agencies
.Debated Reagan like a little boy trying to justify his tantrums
.Won the "I didn't get re-elected award" hands down, based on performance. That award was given by an overwhelming majority of the American people, not by you, the Oslo committee, or the acadamy awards.
Al Gore
didn't win the election for the presidency. He exposed the irrefutable, indisputable, scientific fact that man-made global warming is
not real in an
inaccurate,
untruthful,
dishonest, and scientifically
unsound movie that won an Acadamy Award, and he deservedly won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in bringing about international
coercion in dealing with something that is very likely
to set him up financially for life.
[COLOR=Red]President Obama's efforts to close Gitmo, and reverse the foreign policy of his predecessor while reaching out to other nations in an effort to repair our damaged reputation and moral standing in the world greatly increase
peace in the world. [/COLOR]
I will repeat myself. Ha ha ha. Afghanistan and Pakistan are certainly more peaceful since he took over.
[COLOR=Red]Yassir Arafat was the leader of a terrorist organization, but he's come the closest of any Palestinian leader to bringing lasting peace to that part of the world when he publicly stated that Israel had a right to exist in peace and security and he very nearly got Israel to agree to return to the 1949 armistice lines while recognizing a state of Palestine. This is the closest to true peace those people have ever been.[/COLOR]
In case you didn't notice, Arafat stated publicly one thing while doing the opposite. If you choose to believe the words of a murdering lying terrorist, it just tells me that besides being the names you accuse me of being, you are more of a loudmouthed feminine device with a chip on your shoulder and nothing to back it up than all the other treasonous bottom feeders that you adore.
[COLOR=Black]Goodbye[/COLOR].:headshake
Keep lying douchebag. Nobody but the retarded buy into your lies and idiotic propaganda.
There has to be a smilie for that.
I was hoping one of you internet wizards would post one.
well so much for that hope :O(
I don't think Radar likes me.:)
Why do you say that? He referred to you as "spring fresh"
I'm afraid Radar's claim to being a libertarian has been exposed by his use of name calling when his bullshit is exposed. Typical liberal tactic.
I'm afraid Radar's claim to being a libertarian has been exposed by his use of name calling when his bullshit is exposed. Typical liberal tactic.
Does that make Urbane Guerrilla (the biggest name caller here, from my experience) a liberal as well?
Hey...I dont want him on my team. :headshake
First, I don't use name calling when my bullshit is exposed because I have posted zero bullshit.
I use it to drive home a clear point about those who are taking a position that is contrary to freedom, liberty, equality, truth, honor, justice, the U.S. Constitution and common sense...for instance the series of lies by spudcon in post #155 about Al Gore and the illegal war in Afghanistan that was inherited by President Obama while dishonestly discounting the valuable and important work President Obama has done to increase peace in the world by opening lines of communication and practicing diplomacy rather than idiotic cowboy tactics that increase terrorism and decrease American security as George W. Bush did.
I think that the award of the Peace Prize to President Obama speaks more to the rest of the worlds perception of the United States and our implementation of Foreign Policy under the eight years of the last President.
United States Centric thinking Americans are wondering "What the fuck did this guy get the Peace Prize for?" The award of the Prize, and the overwhelming reaction of Americans to wonder why, speak large volumes to our poor understanding of the rest of the world, and I think to our arrogance and detriment.
But hey, it is more important who is playing in the World Series, and how long the commute to work is, right? The rest of the world, what ever that is, just isn't that important...unless those gas prices start to go up again..those selfish bastards.
Careful Radar, he's got a knife. :unsure:
I've got something better than a knife, Bruce old boyo: I've got history showing I'm right, Radar's wrong, and he can't man up enough to admit his mistake. And it will continue so as long as Radar has his personality. Note he can muster no argument in support of his erroneous thinking. That too shall continue.
No, Radar, no normal person here thinks you have "posted zero bullshit.¨ You are quite, quite alone in that view, and it will stay that way too, since Obama's policies occupy a quasar's distance from Libertarianism.
And you can't conduct a forensic argument. What an incapacity to have.
"I reject your reality. . ." old son. This is because I have a normal brain, with a normal sort of personality. I live elsewhere than the suffocating confines of the Radar-verse.
History tells us Radar is wrong. Radar is not allowed his own facts nor his own history. Radar must, but is too horribly stupid in too many important ways, to admit his egregious, monstrous, silly, totalitarianism-enabling mistake. He's had this coming.
UG doesn't have a normal brain, or much of any brain for that matter. He has narcissistic personality disorder and pathological lying disorder and he constantly practices psychological displacement and transference. He has an abrasive, rude, and disgusting personality and the intellect of a flea. He lacks honor, integrity, character, honesty, education, courage, logic, and reason.
He is completely ignorant of history, politics, science, linguistics, current events, the U.S. Constitution, the founders and the principles that guided them when they created America, and pretty much anything related to geopolitical conditions and their roots.
He thinks he is important and he speaks for others on this board, for instance when he denies the fact that I haven't ever lied or posted bullshit on this, or any other website, he follows it up by telling me what everyone else on the board believes.
UG doesn't know the meaning of the word libertarian, yet he claims to be one. He has no connection to reality, and his thoughts, when he rarely has them, are backwards, twisted, and based on fallacies. He has nothing to back up any of his arguments, which is the opposite of me because I back up each and every single thing I say with sound logic, reason, accurate historical record, and verifiable facts.
He's a gutless, sad, and pathetic little man who thinks if someone doesn't agree with his stupidity, dishonesty, and ridiculous propaganda, "he can't man up and admit his mistake"
In his warped and delusional world, he knows what libertarian is, but here in reality on the planet earth, libertarianism is sort of a scale with authoritarianism (fascism, communism, etc.) on one side and freedom on the other. Many of the less intelligent Republicans like to think they are libertarians, but they are not. Barack Obama is not a libertarian, but he is more libertarian than John McCain, Bob Barr, Hillary Clinton, or any of the other candidates that were running for office. That is to say he supports freedoms more than they do...both economic and personal freedoms.
UG can't see this because like the witless Republican dickheads he is stupid enough to believe are libertarians, he can only see the economic side of things. Over the years, my exchanges with UG have become boring and tedious. At first I really enjoyed having a little Republican puppet like him so I could intellectually squash him like a bug. I effortlessly destroyed every single one of his feeble attempts to debate or make arguments in seconds. I still can, but it hardly seems worth the effort to type it anymore. His inability to string together logical thoughts; his complete dishonesty; his woefully poor education; and his fallacious arguments are incredibly predictable.
I, and the overwhelming majority of Americans who voted for our honorable, intelligent, capable, honest, courageous, patriotic, and charismatic President are happy we did so and are proud to have a well-educated, articulate, man of integrity and character in the oval office for a change; a man who deserved and won the most prestigious honor on earth.
And even though President Obama might not be the best President who ever lived, he's certainly better than abject failures like Ronald Reagan or the Bush boys, and especially better than any of the other choices we had on the ballot. America is far better off now, that it would have been if McCain had won.
Having UG on the Cellar is like winning a bucket of used tampons. Sure, I own him, but do I really want to?
Wall of text, every word false. You are a wreck, Radar, and I have your measure. You cannot show any of what you said, so what you don't know you are doing is squealing like a piggie, eee eee.
It's like you're writing a parody of a rant.
I don't need to have the last word, so long as I have the best. You, sir, are pwned.
As usual. I stomp your stupid ass into a bloody stain on the pavement, and you look up with blood in your eyes and claim victory because you're too dumb to know you've been beaten. How sad and pathetic. Your post amounts to "nuh uh"
Say, did anyone hear that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
:rolleyes: Yea, I heard it. He completely deserved it IMHO. :)
Say, did anyone hear that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
No. Really? For what? :stickpoke
Well I never... if you people are gonna stay on topic, I'm off in a 400 hp snit.:rolleyes:
I dunno, Bruce. Is Radar in full-spherical-asshole-delusive mode really the example you want to follow? Radar couldn't stomp a bug with his raving, and can't support his argument or contention, and everyone but Radar knows as much. He's all mad at me because I pointed out a large error he committed -- how very unpardonable. Radar's midbrain always trumps his forebrain. Ego gratification is his one, sole, and only concern. Nothing else matters, not life, not integrity, not sanity, not intelligence, not family -- only the salving of that bloated tumor of ego he drags around with him, for no cause sane people could pinpoint. In overall effect, a two-digit IQ.
On reflection, the one word he got right on the evidence during the meltdown of post #167 was "abrasive." I do grate on people who refuse to use more than two digits of their IQ at any given juncture. (It's a sin I avoid committing, with success that comes with practice.) Give him his due, his two cents.
UG...what you still cant support is your incessant rhetoric of Obama and Democratic socialism.
Ignorance of the difference between socialism and economic liberalism is no excuse.
I would also suggest looking inward before casting "abrasive" stones.
Redux, look -- I know from your writings that I'm wiser than you are, and my political choices reflect that extra margin of wisdom, values, and understanding. Events support my contentions, not your attempts at denial. History is on my side. It isn't on yours, as will be seen, even by you, over and over and over and over in the next three years. Each and every major policy shift enacted by the Obama Administration and the Democratic-controlled congress is socialistic, cloaked rather unpersuasively in fair-sounding words and guise in order to foist it upon an electorate that isn't yet paying enough attention to launch recall elections and impeachment proceedings. The Administration's actions are solid proof they are economic illiterates, which is something you have to be to stay a socialist.
You cannot convincingly deny any of this. National Review, Larry Elder, American Spectator and Russell Kirk support my view here, and I'll trust those careful scourers of data and events a good deal more than I trust your spoutings of Democratic talking points, designed to obscure both their fundamental social philosophy and the damage it will do the Republic.
The near-term result of all this will be a Republican takeover of one or both houses of Congress and the encysting of the Administration as a lame duck.
UG....you aren't that wise, you're just ideologically rigid.
An economic stimulus and/or jobs program is not socialism.
A progressive income tax is not socialism.
A health reform intitative that attempts to provides affordable (not free) and accessible health care to all citizens is not socialism.
Comprehensive government environmental or financial services regulations are not socialism.
Socialism is the bogeymean that you guys spout and spew when you cant defend your own ideology....not just you, the NR guys as well.
And the National Review guys are smarter than you are, with keener vision. They are also not as easily deceived. You're a good little sheep for the collectivists, just the kind of voter they like best. I've an independent turn of mind, and independence means thinking like an adult and not accepting any manifestation of the State as a surrogate parent -- or ever thinking that I should. My father and mother were really quite adequate to the task, thanks ever so much -- while they were needed.
Buying up a sixth of the national economy is a massive governmental intervention in the economic flow: socialism, by any definition. Perhaps you do not study socialism very much?
A highly progressive income tax is also a socialist feature, as a look at the tax code of any of the socialist welfare states can show -- they wouldn't miss that revenue stream. So it's shown me. Now what's your story? Don't you know anything about socialism?
An inflationarily-expensive taxation-supported health care reform scheme will not cure America, but will sicken the dollar unto death. Socialist states all, without exception, offer rationed, half-effective government-issue health services. Quacks like a socialist duck, Redux, but you'd actually believe it's not? I don't think you know so much, my friend.
Comprehensive government financial regulations can't help but be socialism. They are the very socialist type of policymaking, which has the deleterious effect of distorting the free market mechanisms that are the truest barometer of what a society actually values.
Thus we defend our ideology, through knowing more than the average leftist. Our ideology is essentially expressed as "keep that which is worthwhile, resisting any temptation to discard it just to make room for something novel." Discarding the tried and true for something novel is a temptation for the young, but the magic really goes out of that with either parenthood or turning about 35. In some stubborn cases, both.
Your inability to appreciate and internalize conservative values does not add up to "can't defend our own ideology." It is merely a defect of understanding on your part.
UG.....your ignorance, intentional or not, of socialism is appalling but to be expected from an extremist libertarian.
You are confusing, again, intentionally or not, a short-term economic strategy to stabilize the economy, at the time of the worst recession in 50+ years, with a long-term policy of government taking over the private sector on behalf of the "workers" (not happening).
Or to suggest that a health care proposal that keeps the overwhelming majority of Americans in health plans administered by the private sector is a form of socialism is absurd.
Progressive taxation is not socialism by any definition....deficit spending is not socialism (hell, Reagan and Bush were both huge deficit spenders).
And to suggest that government regulation is a form of socialism is even more mind-boggling.....right up there with your "reasonable gun control leads to genocide" argument.
Added:
UG....whatever happened to you
"getting back to me" on that wacky gun control ---> genocide nonsense?
I shall happily demolish your ignorant contention that it's bizarre that gun control should connect to genocide in a following post. It's a routine thing. I have the knowledge at my fingertips, though it does take a little while to compose the essay....
Its been two months, dude....where's that "knowledge at your fingertips"?
Redux: UG is an extremist but is absolutely NOT a libertarian. He's just a fascist asshole. His views are absolutely NOT libertarian. He doesn't know the meaning of the word libertarian, and this means he also knows nothing about what socialism is. He's just an insignificant little turd with a big mouth who knows nothing, but thinks he knows everything. Like most neocon fascist 'tards, he thinks supporting economic conservatism (something the Republicans are no better at than Democrats) makes him a libertarian.
He is clueless about politics domestically and internationally. He knows nothing about history. He's completely dishonest and cowardly. He talks about IQ points when mine are at least double what his are, and that doesn't even make me above average. He's a half-wit.
Don't try to put this braying jackass into the libertarian camp. We don't want him any more than you do. His warped, twisted, backward, and uneducated views are absolutely not libertarian and are beyond stupid.
He's too dumb to even know when I've nailed him to the wall, or too gutless and dishonest to admit it.
He belongs in the Constitution party (aka American Independent Party), because they are equally insane and fascist as him. He would fit in perfectly with them.
Redux: UG is an extremist but is absolutely NOT a libertarian. He's just a fascist asshole. His views are absolutely NOT libertarian. He doesn't know the meaning of the word libertarian, and this means he also knows nothing about what socialism is. He's just an insignificant little turd with a big mouth who knows nothing, but thinks he knows everything. Like most neocon fascist 'tards, he thinks supporting economic conservatism (something the Republicans are no better at than Democrats) makes him a libertarian.
He is clueless about politics domestically and internationally. He knows nothing about history. He's completely dishonest and cowardly. He talks about IQ points when mine are at least double what his are, and that doesn't even make me above average. He's a half-wit.
Don't try to put this braying jackass into the libertarian camp. We don't want him any more than you do. His warped, twisted, backward, and uneducated views are absolutely not libertarian and are beyond stupid.
He's too dumb to even know when I've nailed him to the wall, or too gutless and dishonest to admit it.
He belongs in the Constitution party (aka American Independent Party), because they are equally insane and fascist as him. He would fit in perfectly with them.
Radar....I know its tempting to get in the gutter with UG when he attacks and demeans the intelligence of those who dont share his view of the world.
I think its more fun to hit him from above with facts that he cant refute and wait for his lame attempts to justify his extremism as somehow being mainstream and more "American."
And all who watch the exchange know that he is in over his head.
Ignore Radar. His tumor of an ego prevents use of that intelligence he vaunts. Libertarianism did not fit his tyrannous nature anyway, and he's abandoned it. With Radar, midbrain always trumps forebrain. The poor fool thought Obama was some description of libertarian. Precisely none of Obama's policy initiatives bear this out, and I'm confident none will.
Nor can Radar point to one single post where he's actually nailed anyone to the wall, let alone someone like me whose personality does not militate against his intellect. You may ignore Radar because he is delusional. Press him to show proof of nailing me to anything, and he will weasel frantically, probably ending up by hurling abuse at you. His ideas are defective, and no defective thought can dismay me.
I suppose it bears repeating, to pierce through your reluctance to learn, Redux: whether I want it or not, I seem to have become Middle America. Happens with age, I guess. I have not experienced a great deal of trouble refuting you yet.
I have a great deal to teach you: that your posture towards Islamofascist terrorism is one of moral cowardice and unbecoming a Jew; that socialism will act to destroy the Republic, not enhance it; that progun attitudes are antigenocide attitudes (must set about composing that essay, with refs, as I promised); that white liberal guilt is not the road of virtue; that tested values seem the only worthy ones. The essence of the conservative ideology is not a pigheaded antipathy towards the new, but that one should keep the tested things that work well, not throwing out the baby with the bathwater in order to make room for something new just because it is novel. New, fresh notions have the potential to be good -- but they must actually fulfill that potential, stand the test of time and virtue, to be at all worthwhile.
What can you teach me except what taking the wrong road looks like? Your body of writing adds up to quite the cautionary tale for the man who looks behind the curtain.
UG...when will you take your own advice?
When will you behave like a man, not a child? When will you show quality? When will you show courage?
Why cant you address the issues like a man and not a child?
Please explain how temporary bail-outs to address an economic crisis equate to a permanent government take-over of all means of production in the interest of the workers....completely different goals.
Explain how health care reform with a significant reliance on the private sector is socialism....as opposed to a single payer, government subsidized system for all.
How is Obama's war in Afghanistan a socialist ideal when a socialist would call for the immediate closing of all U.S. military facilities at home and abroad.
A socialist would also demand the immediate withdrawal from NAFTA....have you seen that in the Obama/Democratic policy statements.
Socialists oppose the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO.....does Obama?
Explain how government environmental regulation is socialism....NOT government ownership of environmental resources as a socialist would support.
How is Obama's support of the Patriot Act representative of socialism?
I could go on...but address these first, please.
added:
You are intentionally or ignorantly blurring the lines between socialism (as a political rather than economic ideology) and liberalism because they share a few common ideals -- workers rights to organize, civil rights and gender equity, consumer protections, etc -- in much the same manner that libertarians (at least those on the right) and conservatives share a few common ideals -- absolute gun rights, deportation of all illegal immigrants, industry self-regulation, etc.
Its a cheap trick and doesnt fly.
Radar....I know its tempting to get in the gutter with UG when he attacks and demeans the intelligence of those who dont share his view of the world.
I think its more fun to hit him from above with facts that he cant refute and wait for his lame attempts to justify his extremism as somehow being mainstream and more "American."
And all who watch the exchange know that he is in over his head.
It's not a matter of getting into the gutter. I made a wholly accurate statement by letting you know that UG is in no way a libertarian. Not in the slightest. His fascist views, bigotry, complete lack of any common sense, understanding of history, science, current events, politics (domestic or international), the U.S. Constitution, the founders of America, etc. prove the adage that those with the least to say talk the most and the loudest. He has shown that he is incapable of coming up with a single cogent thought or rational argument to support any of his disgusting and anti-american positions.
He is genuinely clueless. It's laughable that he considers his warped, twisted, backwards, and extremist views to be "middle-America". He is middle-America the same way that Charles Manson is middle-America.
I do beat him up with the facts. I get the added satisfaction of rubbing his nose in it with a little insult added to that injury and I intellectually stomp his stupid ass into the ground each and every single time we've ever had a conversation on anything.
He wants to know where I've nailed him to the wall. The answer is in EVERY SINGLE POST where we've had any discussion. ALL OF THEM, including this one.
I think Obama should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Hiya Monkeytaco! :welcome: to the cellar. Would it be polite to offer you a banana or something?
I hope you're less bananas than the last newb we picked up. ;)
No, you don't beat me up with facts, Radar. Never once, and you'll never be able to link to a post where you did anything of the kind. Everybody knows that but you. I know it, Redux knows it, Bruce knows it, Griff knows it, Classicman knows it.
A big part of how libertarian my thinking is is measured in how little it resembles your thinking, which is solely about gratifying your narcissism and your narcissistically disordered personality. I have a broader view and wider concerns than my precious amour propre. You are so unlettered in psychology that you psychologically project your narcissism onto me, like a man who has never heard enough of it to be wary of it.
Indeed, your wild remarks show you have no wariness left. You're out beyond Pluto, past Eris, trying to find the buckle on the Kuiper Belt. You're merely throwing an uncomplimentary word salad my way in the hope something might stick, and are speaking without sense. This is why you don't have friends, Radar: you're dishonest, deep in denial, and you just plain don't get humanity, on some deep level. I know you, and I dislike you, as any man not two-fifths insane would.
Ahhh, now our unlibertarian, pathologically lying, psychotic, narcissist accuses me of having no friends. I certainly have more friends on the cellar and everywhere else than he does, but that really doesn't matter. Now he demands a link to the posts where I've nailed him to the wall with facts, logic, reason, and an intellect superior to a hundred of his own.
As I've said before, that would be each and every single post where I have addressed him directly. He'll deny it because his "amour propre"
(self-esteem to those of us not trying to impress people with our word of the day calendar) is actually an unhealthy narcissism he most likely developed in response to a well-deserved inferiority complex. I say well-deserved because he actually is inferior, not only to myself but to any human being with an IQ over 50. I could literally become the wealthiest man on earth if I could buy UG for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth.
Here's a link to my posts. The search by key word isn't working so you'll have to comb through the ones where you are addressed. The truth is he can't come up with a single thread where we were having a discussion where I didn't destroy him.
http://cellar.org/search.php?searchid=1978554
UG claims to know me and dislike me. This is true. He knows me as the man who repeatedly and unmercifully destroys each and every single one of his feeble attempts to argue against me on each and every single topic he's ever tried to discuss. He knows me as the man who owns him. He knows me as his daddy because I constantly dish out spankings to this dishonest, gutless, worthless, waste of human flesh without an ounce of honor, integrity, honesty, or intellect.
This is also why he doesn't like me. It bothers him that I'm showing everyone that his ego is the size of the Hindenburg but his true worth is the size of the fart bubbles he bites when in the bath. He can't stand me interfering with his delusions of grandeur....or delusions of adequacy for that matter.
Every uncomplimentary remark I've made does stick to him because they are all accurate descriptions of him.
He has no grasp of reality or real human behavior among those of us who aren't clinically insane like him. He genuinely believes he represents the "norm" in society when they more accurately represent the norm in an asylum for the criminally insane.
He likes to think he's a libertarian but he has no comprehension whatsoever of what that means. He is clueless about libertarianism as he is about most things. He is too witless and stupid to comprehend the truth that President Obama, while not a libertarian, was more libertarian than any of the other candidates running for President. At least those who had any realistic shot of winning or who appeared on the ballot in all 50 states.
He's a troll every bit as much as Emma, but Emma has an excuse for her ignorance, backward philosophy, and anti-American attitudes. She's a stupid kid. UG, on the other hand, has had to work hard to remain that wantonly stupid. He's purposefully avoided anything remotely resembling the truth, facts, logic, reason, accurate historical records, current events and geopolitical conditions. Even when presented with the truth and having his feeble arguments shattered into a million pieces, he simply denies losing the argument and continues spreading lies, propaganda, and stupidity.
Hiya Monkeytaco! :welcome: to the cellar. Would it be polite to offer you a banana or something?
I hope you're less bananas than the last newb we picked up. ;)
From the thread Monkeytaco just posted, I am guessing this is the last newb.
Actually a sock-puppet of the temporarily banned.
Yeh! The celebration is not far off. . .
Radar, your intellect remains in ruins, brought low by your personality. (I will never know what that is like. Sounds terrible.) Not one of your posts exhibits the superiority you claim and your mind is therefore disordered, your thinking invalid. There is no proof of your excellence, and much of your narcissism -- in all that.
I see you're working up on psychologically projecting "clinically insane," too. Jeezus, are you ever wretched at this. No common sense at all. Not that I'm actually disappointed; datapoints on your madness are helpful -- to me anyway.
Your argument for your position amounts to "did too did too did too," you childish, grotesquely aberrant Obama-believer. There is no libertarianism whatsoever in Obama's soul, Administration, Cabinet, political philosophy, or policymaking -- and I know you shall never show the contrary. You believe he's libertarian, but what of that? You cannot even show libertarianism in yourself; it does not connect with the one thing that ever mattered to you: your unbalanced ego and your utter lack of people skills, which make you incapable at either forensics or politics. You are incompetent. You are not permitted any input into whether I am a libertarian or no, and you insist on offending on that score, rather than accepting that which you cannot change and should not change. Your egotism does not sufficiently impress me to make any difference in what or how I think, or the quality of my thought, which will ever be better ordered than yours, as evidenced by the words you write. Your whole body of work here does not add up to excellent thought -- after all, you were the one voting for Obama under the belief he was the libertarians' best candidate, but it is now clear you are a supporter of nanny-state socialism. Were it otherwise, you would have voted for the Republican, an act of which for no reason you are incapable.
Well, enough. I don't need the last word, so long as I may have the best. No doubt I will continue to brush you aside for a while yet, as is your deserts.
In other words... blah blah blah blah narcissistic personality disorder...blah blah blah....word of the day....blah blah blah I'm a libertarian...no really.....blah blah blah Obama isn't a libertarian.....blah blah blah....you did not prove me wrong......blah blah blah...nuh uh....blah blah blah....
Time to come up with a new act sport, this one is worn out.
I'd love to see you eventually post a single original thought or well-organized and cogent argument rather than idiotic ramblings and incoherent blathering. It would be nice to finally be challenged by you rather than just swatting you like a fly. I'd love it if you could logically justify a single one of your positions, but you can't. You are wrong on the issues, you try to use lies and propaganda to justify your untenable position, and because you are the antithesis of libertarianism, you think war mongers with a long history of corruption like Mr. Keating 5 McCain are more libertarian than a President who supports the freedom to do what you want with your body and who actually tells the truth to the American people.
UG, you're a fucking joke. You're a puppet. I wind you up and make you dance at my whim. I've owned you from the day you first ran your stupid mouth and I'll continue to own you and destroy your weak arguments effortlessly until you leave this site or you die. I know who you are when you're posting here or anywhere else because your stupidity, and dishonesty shines through.
Oh well, just being polite.
No, you don't beat me up with facts, Radar. Never once, and you'll never be able to link to a post where you did anything of the kind. Everybody knows that but you. I know it, Redux knows it, Bruce knows it, Griff knows it, Classicman knows it.
A big part of how libertarian my thinking is is measured in how little it resembles your thinking, which is solely about gratifying your narcissism and your narcissistically disordered personality. I have a broader view and wider concerns than my precious amour propre. You are so unlettered in psychology that you psychologically project your narcissism onto me, like a man who has never heard enough of it to be wary of it.
Indeed, your wild remarks show you have no wariness left. You're out beyond Pluto, past Eris, trying to find the buckle on the Kuiper Belt. You're merely throwing an uncomplimentary word salad my way in the hope something might stick, and are speaking without sense. This is why you don't have friends, Radar: you're dishonest, deep in denial, and you just plain don't get humanity, on some deep level. I know you, and I dislike you, as any man not two-fifths insane would.
Ahhh, now our unlibertarian, pathologically lying, psychotic, narcissist accuses me of having no friends. I certainly have more friends on the cellar and everywhere else than he does, but that really doesn't matter. Now he demands a link to the posts where I've nailed him to the wall with facts, logic, reason, and an intellect superior to a hundred of his own.
As I've said before, that would be each and every single post where I have addressed him directly. He'll deny it because his "amour propre" (self-esteem to those of us not trying to impress people with our word of the day calendar) is actually an unhealthy narcissism he most likely developed in response to a well-deserved inferiority complex. I say well-deserved because he actually is inferior, not only to myself but to any human being with an IQ over 50. I could literally become the wealthiest man on earth if I could buy UG for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth.
Here's a link to my posts. The search by key word isn't working so you'll have to comb through the ones where you are addressed. The truth is he can't come up with a single thread where we were having a discussion where I didn't destroy him.
http://cellar.org/search.php?searchid=1978554
UG claims to know me and dislike me. This is true. He knows me as the man who repeatedly and unmercifully destroys each and every single one of his feeble attempts to argue against me on each and every single topic he's ever tried to discuss. He knows me as the man who owns him. He knows me as his daddy because I constantly dish out spankings to this dishonest, gutless, worthless, waste of human flesh without an ounce of honor, integrity, honesty, or intellect.
This is also why he doesn't like me. It bothers him that I'm showing everyone that his ego is the size of the Hindenburg but his true worth is the size of the fart bubbles he bites when in the bath. He can't stand me interfering with his delusions of grandeur....or delusions of adequacy for that matter.
Every uncomplimentary remark I've made does stick to him because they are all accurate descriptions of him.
He has no grasp of reality or real human behavior among those of us who aren't clinically insane like him. He genuinely believes he represents the "norm" in society when they more accurately represent the norm in an asylum for the criminally insane.
He likes to think he's a libertarian but he has no comprehension whatsoever of what that means. He is clueless about libertarianism as he is about most things. He is too witless and stupid to comprehend the truth that President Obama, while not a libertarian, was more libertarian than any of the other candidates running for President. At least those who had any realistic shot of winning or who appeared on the ballot in all 50 states.
He's a troll every bit as much as Emma, but Emma has an excuse for her ignorance, backward philosophy, and anti-American attitudes. She's a stupid kid. UG, on the other hand, has had to work hard to remain that wantonly stupid. He's purposefully avoided anything remotely resembling the truth, facts, logic, reason, accurate historical records, current events and geopolitical conditions. Even when presented with the truth and having his feeble arguments shattered into a million pieces, he simply denies losing the argument and continues spreading lies, propaganda, and stupidity.
Radar, your intellect remains in ruins, brought low by your personality. (I will never know what that is like. Sounds terrible.) Not one of your posts exhibits the superiority you claim and your mind is therefore disordered, your thinking invalid. There is no proof of your excellence, and much of your narcissism -- in all that.
I see you're working up on psychologically projecting "clinically insane," too. Jeezus, are you ever wretched at this. No common sense at all. Not that I'm actually disappointed; datapoints on your madness are helpful -- to me anyway.
Your argument for your position amounts to "did too did too did too," you childish, grotesquely aberrant Obama-believer. There is no libertarianism whatsoever in Obama's soul, Administration, Cabinet, political philosophy, or policymaking -- and I know you shall never show the contrary. You believe he's libertarian, but what of that? You cannot even show libertarianism in yourself; it does not connect with the one thing that ever mattered to you: your unbalanced ego and your utter lack of people skills, which make you incapable at either forensics or politics. You are incompetent. You are not permitted any input into whether I am a libertarian or no, and you insist on offending on that score, rather than accepting that which you cannot change and should not change. Your egotism does not sufficiently impress me to make any difference in what or how I think, or the quality of my thought, which will ever be better ordered than yours, as evidenced by the words you write. Your whole body of work here does not add up to excellent thought -- after all, you were the one voting for Obama under the belief he was the libertarians' best candidate, but it is now clear you are a supporter of nanny-state socialism. Were it otherwise, you would have voted for the Republican, an act of which for no reason you are incapable.
Well, enough. I don't need the last word, so long as I may have the best. No doubt I will continue to brush you aside for a while yet, as is your deserts.
In other words... blah blah blah blah narcissistic personality disorder...blah blah blah....word of the day....blah blah blah I'm a libertarian...no really.....blah blah blah Obama isn't a libertarian.....blah blah blah....you did not prove me wrong......blah blah blah...nuh uh....blah blah blah....
Time to come up with a new act sport, this one is worn out.
I'd love to see you eventually post a single original thought or well-organized and cogent argument rather than idiotic ramblings and incoherent blathering. It would be nice to finally be challenged by you rather than just swatting you like a fly. I'd love it if you could logically justify a single one of your positions, but you can't. You are wrong on the issues, you try to use lies and propaganda to justify your untenable position, and because you are the antithesis of libertarianism, you think war mongers with a long history of corruption like Mr. Keating 5 McCain are more libertarian than a President who supports the freedom to do what you want with your body and who actually tells the truth to the American people.
UG, you're a fucking joke. You're a puppet. I wind you up and make you dance at my whim. I've owned you from the day you first ran your stupid mouth and I'll continue to own you and destroy your weak arguments effortlessly until you leave this site or you die. I know who you are when you're posting here or anywhere else because your stupidity, and dishonesty shines through.
Where's tw when you need someone to start talking about 'big dic' thinking. lol
. . .85% of the time he's meeting with upper management.
No, Radar. You are more and more deluded, and more and more friendless. You cannot think, much less think as a human thinks -- your narcissism forbids coherent thought, if not necessarily correct grammar. Post 194 is your latest lie. Post 190-something will be your next one. You shall continue self-destruction, and be the Unter'tard who lost an argument on the Internet -- by talking. It is hard to make the man who is pointing out your humiliation to dance, and you aren't accomplishing it. A smart man does not try and win a political-policy debate by railing and vituperation. So, you being you, you didn't try the smart thing, but picked the Radar thing, and ranted and railed, and you lose, I win big.
You are incompetent, and shall remain so.
You give no proofs, no adequate support to your positions, and that shall remain so also.
You have no claim to high intelligence, because you do not evidence it. Of available choices, you consistently choose poorly.
You thought Obama was something like a Libertarian. No credible Libertarian agrees. And you are out of the Libertarian Party, who did not go into mourning or disarray on your departure.
You are madly prejudiced against Republicans, for no known reason. Not even an unfactual one.
You gratuitously abuse avowed Christians, just out of the blue. This is not the behavior of an intelligent man. It is the behavior of a spherical asshole -- an asshole regardless of what direction you look from.
You are impolite. Stupid is as stupid does. Guess what you do.
Your only God is yourself. You don't qualify for godhead, trust me. I know more about it than you do.
Thanks for proving my point from post #194.
Just reinforcing the impression you create.
Oh, I wanted to give you credit. You accidentally said something that was correct for a change. I am indeed no longer a member of the Libertarian Party. I have this in common with the vast majority of libertarians in America as the Libertarian Party is no longer being run by actual libertarians and the Republicans who took over the party gutted the party platform. You almost got something right when you said my only god is myself, but to correct you...as I often do.... I am not my own god. I have no god, and require none. I see the worship of any so-called deity as a crutch for those too weak or frightened to realize that this is all the life you get. Anything you haven't done in this life will not be done by you in another. If your life is miserable here, the only life you'll ever have is a miserable one and you'll likely end up miserable as you clearly are.
Everything else you said, as usual, is a complete lie and fits the pattern I described in post 194.
Oh you boys...just stop this ruckus right this minute or you'll both get a spanking. ;)
It's the politics forum. Let them ruck.
It's the politics forum. Let them ruck.
Right on! Of course neither of them has ever successfully changed anyones opinion, if that is the goal...
UG and Radar are locked in a battle until DEATH! Who will win?
A) UG
B) Radar
C) The entire Cellar community
I wish I could draw as well as my imagination. This would make an awesome Celebrity Death Match.
I think it would be great as a regular death match.
You have him in weight, but he has you in knives.
UG could get it put on line live and we could all pay the Cellar to watch.
You have him in weight, but he has you in knives.
He's dumb enough to bring knives to a gun fight, but I'd beat him if neither of us had weapons.
You are unlikely to manage it by force of wit, that is certain. Remember your personality forbids use of more than two digits of your IQ at any single juncture, as evinced by your voting choice and your anti-Republican irrationalities. In any case, my working assumption is I will be the one able to kick your ribs to flinders, boot your balls up into your medulla, gouge your eyes, snap your elbows and knees backwards, bust your teeth out on my patio rail and tie your ears in a knot. Then I'll be warmed up enough to get rough.
It is apparent that underneath, you know you have erred in attributing anything libertarian to Obama -- or your reaction would never have been so intemperate and at such length, too. But ohhhh, no -- can't confess to having been so signally fooled -- when I was not fooled and current events prove me accurate. Might sour your narcissism just the least little bit; can't have that.
Dance to your tune, did you say? You who have not managed to vex or annoy me enough to even put you on Ignore? Suuuuuuure you can make me dance, Rad...iolarian.
Hell, what's the likelihood Obama received ANY Libertarian's vote? -- pointedly excluding you from that company. I think I'll trust Reason magazine over the ideas of some gratuitously assholic jerk on the Internet. I'm too good a man to bow to any person of that description, besides which I am the classy one here, as our respective postings show.
I will be the one able to kick your ribs to flinders, boot your balls up into your medulla, gouge your eyes, snap your elbows and knees backwards, bust your teeth out on my patio rail and tie your ears in a knot.
See, that is why UG missed out on the peace prize this year.
Yep. He's a real keyboard commando. I love how each and every post he makes fits the pattern I described. Once again I've nailed him to the wall and all he can do is make empty denials.
I have to admit, though, there aren't too many people who would threaten to boot your balls up into your medulla. :nadkick:
Although I am left wondering just what kind of kick this would be:
Medical uses include:
* Medulla oblongata, a part of the brain stem
* Renal medulla, a part of the kidney
* Adrenal medulla, a part of the adrenal gland
* Medulla ossea, the marrow inside a bone
* Medulla spinalis, an alternative name for the spinal cord
* Medulla of ovary
* Medulla of thymus
* Medulla of lymph node
* Medulla (hair)
Non-medical uses of the term include:
* Medúlla, a 2004 music album by Icelandic singer Björk
* Medulla, Florida, a U.S. city
* Las Médulas, Ancient Roman gold mines in León, Spain
* Medulla Grammatice or Medulla Grammaticae, a fifteenth-century Latin–Middle English dictionary.
Probably the latter. He's probably got a collection of them.
Radar is more the keyboard commando than he is the politician, that is abundantly certain. He's hands down the most impolitic man I know. Impeached on the facts, he tries to bully his way out of the pitfall he's in -- of all things! Failure is his consequent lot -- he can't argue the merits of a case that has none, and he isn't even trying to argue on the merits. This nonlibertarian dumbshit voted to buy the destruction of the American economy and the US dollar, in part by the buying of inflation through trillion-dollar deficit spending. Thanks for doing your bit to fuck up my Republic, you socialist-Democratic-voting, inflation-buying, maybe-antifascist-war-losing, Republican-hating asswipe. What is the daily fate of an asswipe? To be covered in shit in normal use.
My "pattern," such as it is, is the pattern of a better, more rational, and humbler man than you are, Radar. I like it that way. I am what better mannered than you looks like, I am what better-read than you sounds like. We're not intellectual equals? True enough; I am immeasurably your moral superior, as your posts show. My personality does not attack my own intellect.
My "pattern," such as it is, is the pattern of a better, more rational, and [COLOR="Red"]humbler[/COLOR] man than you are, Radar. I like it that way. I am what better mannered than you looks like, I am what better-read than you sounds like. We're not intellectual equals? True enough; I am immeasurably your moral superior, as your posts show. My personality does not attack my own intellect.
I'm humble, take my word for it. In fact I am more humble then you are. I LOLed. I couldn't make this stuff up. This is true entertainment. I would like to thank you two, UG and Radar, for brightening my day today. Right when I was feeling a little of the ole mid-deployment blues. Thanks guys. :D
Nice catch! I might've scanned right past that gem.
Glad to cheer you up Joe. Any time my humiliating and destroying UG will brighten your day, let me know and I'll do it again. After all it's effortless because I'm his intellectual, social, moral, and physical superior. But then again, so is pretty much everyone else here. He's upset because I'm more libertarian than he is, and while President Obama is not a libertarian, he's more libertarian than the other candidates and more libertarian than UG himself.
I voted for a more fiscally responsible president than we had with George W. Bush. But then again, over the last 30 years Democrats have always been more fiscally responsible than Republicans if you go by how much each administration has increased the national debt.
That chart doesn't make me feel good at all. It makes me ill just looking at it. Sure, the Republicans are much worse, but the debt is still growing. Look at the debt as a percentage of GDP. We were at 33% at the end of Carter's term, and we are at 83% now? That sucks no matter how you look at it.
Not to worry, glatt. We're only paying $200,000,000,000 a year interest on that debt. :mg:
Not to worry, glatt. We're only paying $200,000,000,000 a year interest on that debt. :mg:
To who?
Most of it is going to China and Japan.
Here's a complete list.To who?
China, Japan, and the World Bank.
When you adjust for inflation, eliminate defense spending, social programs and everything other than discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush grew government faster than any other president in modern times (President Johnson forward) and he vetoed spending bills less than any other president. He grew government at double the rate of Bill Clinton.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342That chart doesn't make me feel good at all. It makes me ill just looking at it. Sure, the Republicans are much worse, but the debt is still growing. Look at the debt as a percentage of GDP. We were at 33% at the end of Carter's term, and we are at 83% now? That sucks no matter how you look at it.
If you think that's bad, look at the per-capita numbers.
http://www.presidentialdebt.org
Isn't part of the issue, as per many previous discussions in other threads, that the preceding presidential policies affect the next?
I don't see where this graph really explains shit as far as who "you" want to blame for what. What it shows me or rather confirms for me is that politicians as a whole will spend other people's money with reckless disregard - doesn't matter if they are D's or R's.
What it shows me is that Republicans always claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and lately the party of "god". They are neither of these things.
While I wouldn't classify either of them as fiscally responsible, it's obvious that Republicans spend more than Democrats. Then if the following administration happens to be a Democratic one, Republicans complain that Democrats raise taxes to pay for the bills they inherited from the previous administration.
Once again, neither Republicans, nor Democrats are libertarians, but Democrats are closer, even if only by a little bit.
As a Constitutional Scholar, Radar, whom would you say is in charge of federal spending?
Exactly. So I improved your chart.
Who signs the bills again UT? Oh that's right the President. Even with your attempt to shift the focus to congress, the chart shows that when Carter (A Democrat) had a Democratic Congress, the national debt grew at 10.6% per year. When George W. Bush (A Republican) had a Republican Congress, it grew at 11.1% per year. The difference is Carter vetoed a lot more spending bills even against his own party than George W. Bush did. In fact every president in history has vetoed more spending bills than George W. Bush.
The president proposes a budget. Congress can either go with that one or create their own and vote on that. Either way if the President vetoes it, it won't be passed without 2/3 of both houses voting for it. This is highly unlikely and was not the case during the Reagan years, the Bush years, etc.
Clinton's years were so much better because he FORCED the Republican Congress to balance the budget. He kept using his veto power and the Republicans allowed government to shut down in an effort to get Clinton to bend to their will. It didn't work. Eventually public pressure got to the Republicans and they had to propose the first balanced budget in the last 30 years in order to get Clinton to sign it.
If the President signs it, it is as though he is spending it. So my original statement stands.
As a Constitutional Scholar, Radar, whom would you say is in charge of federal spending?
[COLOR="White"]oh fuggit . . . [/COLOR]
<crickets chirping>
As a Constitutional Scholar, Radar, whom would you say is in charge of federal spending?
As a Constitutional Scholar, I'd say since the President is signing it and allowing it to pass, he's responsible for it unless congress overrides his veto with a 2/3 majority vote and then Congress alone is responsible. If you go to dinner with 4 people and you take the bill from the waitress, hand them a credit card, and sign to pay for the bill it is your responsibility even though everyone else at the table is responsible for increasing the bill, you took responsibility when you signed. If Congress overrides a veto of the President on their spending bills, they have essentially taken the bill away from the president and signed for it themselves.
Congress can put anything they want in spending bills but unless the president signs it, they have nothing. So when the president signs bills for federal spending, the president is responsible for that spending. If he vetoes spending and congress overrides the veto, congress is responsible.
Ah - but what if I go to dinner with four people, and agree to pay the bill if they don't order lobster, but then one person orders lobster, but then I realize lobster will improve the person's disposition such that they will sleep with me, so I just settle for a cheap salad... but when the bill comes I point out that lobster was ordered, and get another person to kick in $5 and stiff the waiter on tips. Who's responsible then?
Almost as scary as Lookout's picture:
[ATTACH]25578[/ATTACH]
The debtor irresponsibility of both the (R) and the (D) is a big reason I remain an (L) over Radar's objections. He thinks the Libertarian treehouse is only big enough for him. Nowadays, I believe he has climbed out of its window and is now well out on a trembling limb over a deep pit of socialism -- inhabited by its collectivist serpents.
The Libertarian Party has not yet had the learning experience of getting corrupted by necessities. Where they particularly shine is in their habit of reevaluating just what "necessities" are: fundamentally it's the question "Does the State do anything important enough to go into debt over?" When a State goes into debt it drives inflation, as the currency is a monopoly of the State.
Almost as scary as Lookout's picture:
[ATTACH]25578[/ATTACH]
Without a timeline and a inflation index it really means nothing.
Half-agree: most of those figures are RFN, so inflation doesn't really matter. The Marshall Aid was apparently adjusted for inflation. The foreign aid since 1970 does need adjusting.
The bailout could have paid off damn near every home loan in the US. I wonder how things would have turned out if they had just done that.
Insanely high inflation would be my guess. All the dumbshits who had twice the house they could afford would now have a free and clear home and available cash to do whatever they want with. I'm guessing boats and hummers would top the list.
Insanely high inflation would be my guess. All the dumbshits who had twice the house they could afford would now have a free and clear home and available cash to do whatever they want with. I'm guessing boats and hummers would top the list.
Think of all the jobs that would create! That's a good thing, as long as the jobs are created in the US.
Think of all the jobs that would create! That's a good thing, as long as the jobs are created in the US.
Not to worry about that, the Congress and Obama already promised us in Feb 2009 that the last spending bill would create "hundreds of thousands of jobs."
Actually, it's already created more than 600,000 jobs and counting, and it also saved every remaining job at GM and several large banking institutions.
We could live in Spain.
link
The Euro area unemployment rate remained steady at 9.8% in October 2009, the same level as in the previous month.
For the EU27 countries as a whole, the unemployment rate rose slightly to 9.3% which compares with 9.2% for September 2009 and 7.3% October last year.
Among the Member States, the lowest unemployment rates were recorded in the Netherlands (3.7%) and Austria (4.7%), and the highest rates in Latvia (20.9%) and Spain (19.3%).
In October 2009, the youth unemployment rate (under-25s) was 20.6% in the euro area and 20.7% in the EU27. The lowest rate was observed in the Netherlands (7.2%), and the highest rates in Spain (42.9%) and Latvia (33.6% in the third quarter of 2009).
As a comparison with the rest of the world, in October 2009, the unemployment rate was 10.2% in the USA and 5.1% in Japan.
:lol: sure.
Laugh all you want, but it's a documented fact.
http://www.recovery.gov. . . documented by Obama and Company
And they have more credibility than any of those who who attempt to discredit them because every bit of it is readily verifiable complete with the name of the company doing the project, the project type and location, and how many jobs were created for the project. It would be an easy matter to contact the company to verify the listing and since the company doing the work submitted the paperwork detailing how many jobs were created, it's unlikely they would be different than what you see on the recovery.gov website.
Every single non-partisan organization who has looked at the numbers dispute the lies from the White House.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/recovery-stats-get-rougher/There are no lies from the white house; at least not yet with this administration. Those problems are all related to the contractors filling their paperwork incorrectly and not knowing which congressional district they are in or in not reporting the jobs created for the money they got or vice-versa.
Nobody said contractors were the best in the world at paperwork. The website reports the information coming in on the forms. No part of any discrepancies has anything to do with the white house or dishonesty on the part of the white house or even those sending in the reports, though it does seem to point at some contractors who are hopefully better at construction than they are at paperwork.
The factcheck.org article you linked to says the GAO says the numbers are plus or minus 50,000 which means at the worst, the stimulus package has created nearly 600,000 jobs.
The article says:
even the government watchdog whom the Obama administration put in charge of monitoring stimulus spending said today that the White House had been too quick to take credit for saving or creating 640,000 jobs. Earl Devaney admitted to members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that there were too many errors in the reporting to know the true number of jobs.
GAO found almost 4,000 reports that showed jobs created or saved but no money received or expended. Those reports represented more than 50,000 jobs. Recovery.gov’s total job count is 640,329.
640,329 - 50,000 = 590,329
Also discrepancy doesn't mean lie. It's nothing more than clerical errors not by the whitehouse, but by those filling out the paperwork for money they got from the stimulus package.
Sorry, that is not what most people see.
AP caught them in the same lie in Oct. And they tracked down how they fudged the numbers.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029/D9BKMVMG0.html
Any way you are pissing in the wind. Even if the numbers were close to being true Californication alone lost over 600,000 jobs in the last year.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htmActually, it's already created more than 600,000 jobs and counting, and it also saved every remaining job at GM and several large banking institutions.
You take that Democratic pronouncement seriously? You're in worse shape than I thought.
If you were an honest man, you'd've changed your handle to Lampwick months ago. What a wee funny Democratic puppet man. Dance, puppet, dance to the Socialists' tune, dance... dance.
Caught part of his acceptance speech this am. It was well delivered. A bit long. And a bit strange. But over all he did a good job.
Does saying that make you feel dirty? :D
I agree, I think it was a very well crafted message on the moral imperative of some wars.
While I agree that there is a moral imperative to defensive wars....wars in which we are fighting those who attacked us first, I do not agree that the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan fit that description. Afghanistan didn't attack us. In fact neither did the Taliban. Neither did Iraq. And none of them posed a danger to America.
They were harboring Al Queda, but the correct response to this would be to make a 100 billion dollar reward open to anyone...for Osama Bin Laden's head, and to issue letters of marquis and reprisal per the U.S. Constitution...against Al Queda. Any private black-op militias like say (Blackwater), could go into Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else and kill, rape, loot, etc. all they want but if they get caught, they are on their own. If they can get back to America, they will be protected by our government and be held blameless for any crimes they've committed in any other country in order to bring back the head of Osama Bin Laden or to kill Al Queda members.
Right after 9/11 there would have been thousands if not millions willing to sign up for that kind of a deal.
We'd have saved trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives lost needlessly in unconstitutional wars, etc.
If we were fighting an "unconstitutional war," Radar might be right.
But for six years straight, most of America and all of Congress, plus two Presidents and Cabinets and sundry Constitutional scholars who don't have personality disorders quite disagree with Radar. The Constitution does not say what you say it says, never did, never will, Radar. Warfighting flexibility for the Commander-In-Chief is in some measure expressed and in greater measure implied. The Constitution says Congress may declare war. It nowhere says nor implies that Congressional declaration is required before the troops can move out. Even the guys carrying the rifles, as Radar has never done, want it that way.
So, Paul, take your "unconstitutional" and insert it, with a half twist, you anti-intelligent personality and tiny-minded wiper of antidemocratic bottoms. Your notion suffers the daily fate of most of your asswipe notions: to be covered in shit and flushed. Your thinking is as contemptible to the people of freedom as it is disturbed to the people of psychology.
Letters of marque and reprisal. Guess that's something I knew and you didn't. Bright boy.
You might be right if you weren't an retarded sociopath who picks the wrong side of every issue.
I've proven many times that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unconstitutional in several ways.
1) The President has no power to make war with even a single soldier for a single day and the unconstitutional 1971 "War Powers Act" doesn't change that as it directly contradicts the U.S. Constitution which is the HIGHEST law in the land and according to the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison, all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
2) Congress alone has the power to make war, and then only when it is America's "common DEFENSE". Defense means we only attack when we are attacked, and then only against those who attacked us.
3) Congress may only exercise their power to make war through a Cosntitutionall required formal declaration of war.
4) Congress may not grant its constitutional powers to any other branch of government such as granting the president the "authority to use force". The only way powers may change from one branch to another is through a formal declaration of war.
5) The President is not the commander-in-chief of the military until called upon to be such through a formal declaration of war.
It doesn't matter what "the guys carrying rifles" want. It only matters what the Constitution says and it says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional and that anyone who claims they aren't are filthy liars, complete idiots, or both, especially if they are non-libertarian, lying, and insane cowards like UG.
Lastly, there is nothing that you know and I don't other than what it's like to be humiliated, punished and defeated on a daily basis by my intellectual, social, and physical superior as you suffer from me on a daily basis or what it's like to be a dishonest, gutless, piece of shit with the intellect of a flea which you experience every time you look at the guy you're shaving in the mirror.
Ooops, sorry. Thought I'd walk into this thread and there'd be peace running all over the place. :lol:
Oh YEAH...this is why there will never be peace in our world.
Ooops, sorry. Thought I'd walk into this thread and there'd be peace running all over the place. :lol:
Oh YEAH...this is why there will never be peace in our world.
We just redefined peace so it's all ok now. There will be peace one day maybe: at the cost of the definition. :p
Lets hold hands anyway though.
I can't make an edit, so here's a correction to my post...
4) Congress may not grant its constitutional powers to any other branch of government such as granting the president the "authority to use force". The only way powers may change from one branch to another is through a Constitutional amendment.
I think faster than I type, but neither is very slow.
Ooops, sorry. Thought I'd walk into this thread and there'd be peace running all over the place. :lol:
Oh YEAH...this is why there will never be peace in our world.
You didn't think it would be that easy, did you?
We just redefined peace so it's all ok now. There will be peace one day maybe: at the cost of the definition. :p
Lets hold hands anyway though.
And sing!
[YOUTUBE]6mOEU87SBTU[/YOUTUBE]
We just redefined peace so it's all ok now. There will be peace one day maybe: at the cost of the definition. :p
Lets hold hands anyway though.
I'm down with that!
You didn't think it would be that easy, did you?
Oh heck no...which is why I pointed it out! These guys are coming to virtual blows over who won the PEACE prize. What does that tell you about our chances for peace in our world? As Obama said, people have been warring in one form or another since the beginning of mankind.
And sing!
And smoke dope and hold hands! Groovy, man. 'Cept you don't really want to hear me sing.
...'Cept you don't really want to hear me sing.
Yes I do.:p
[YOUTUBE]NWrCf7rAytc[/YOUTUBE]
Oh heck no...which is why I pointed it out! These guys are coming to virtual blows over who won the PEACE prize. What does that tell you about our chances for peace in our world? As Obama said, people have been warring in one form or another since the beginning of mankind.
Which brings us back around to trust. Dems trust Obama and Reps trusted Bush. I trust no one with that much power to make moral decisions. People somewhere will go in the meat-grinder for reasons skewed by political convenience and an over-blown sense of certitude. We give power addicts power and expect them to be responsible with it.
As Douglas Adams observed, (paraphrasing) the sort of person who wants to be in charge is exactly the sort of person who should not be allowed to be in charge.
But if it isn't them, it'd just be someone else.
No provision in the Constitution supports any of your contentions, Radar. I read the Constitution, which says you are wrong. Were you right, you wouldn't rely on trying to make me feel bad for knowing better than you, would you now? You'd be showing me up with relevant quotations, now wouldn't you? Those have never happened, have they? Can't link to even one, IIRC.
Your intellectual bias is all about keeping America from winning fights with totalitarians, I make note. You weren't able to do anything about World Wars One or Two, so you're doing your damnedest to prop up the forces of unfreedom now. I don't have that bias, being a man of freedom in a way you never can be, owing to your personality.
Your posts exhibit your inferior scholarship and your delusive thought. Your adherence to them shows your childish inability to admit fault. Ranting does not persuade, and you haven't a hope of making me the issue, yet on and on you try, failing always. You embarrass yourself before your intellectual match, indeed before your intellectual better. I don't rant, because I am the better man. Observe, if you will or can, the excellence of my manners compared to yours, for just one place where you are bettered. I know many others are observing.
You weren't able to do anything about World Wars One or Two, so you're doing your damnedest to prop up the forces of unfreedom now.
disagrees with me == traitor
Man, you've got some serious tinfoilishness going on there, UG.
What else do you expect dar? He's a lying, idiotic, weasel who is immune to logic, reason, facts, accurate historical record, or even black and white excerpts from the Constitution. Facts don't matter to people as mentally unstable and delusional as UG. You can't reason with the unreasonable like UG.
I've long quoted the parts of the Constitution that prove everything I've said. The Constitution grants ONLY Congress the power to DECLARE war when it is used to carry out the goal of "common DEFENSE". It cannot make war other than through a formal declaration of war. This is the only means given to Congress to make war.
To anyone that comprehends the English language, this means the role and scope of the U.S. military is defined and limited to being for the DEFENSE of America, not offensive action against other nations that pose no harm to our own and which have not attacked ours. It also means that Congress can only make war through a declaration of war. The Constitution also describes the only way to change the Constitution...through an amendment. Which means acts of congress that contradict the Constitution such as Congress authorizing the president to make war, are blatantly unconstitutional. The power of Congress to make war is limited to being only for our defense and defense, by definition, means we only declare war on nations that attack our own. The Constitution also clearly states that the President is the commander-in-chief WHEN CALLED UPON by Congress, which means through a formal declaration of war because this is the only way the Constitution allows Congress to make war.
One might think that UG's inability to comprehend the English language might be limited to his utter disdain for the U.S. Constitution, but his disdain and selective illiteracy also applies to libertarian philosophy...which is funny since he dishonestly claims to be a libertarian.
The core belief of the libertarian philosophy is NON-AGGRESSION, which means you DO NOT initiate force against anyone who has not initiated force against you. UG likes to make self-righteous platitudes about wanting to kill others in the name of freedom and justice, and other nonsense ad nauseum, and if those people ask him for help, he should be free to volunteer to go to those places and help them on his own. But he isn't satisfied with that. He thinks he is entitled to use the U.S. Military which is defined and limited by the Constitution as being for the common DEFENSE of America, to attack nations which have not attacked ours, and which pose no danger to our own country. This is not only unlibertarian, it's unAmerican, and idiotic. It violates the principles of our founders who warned us to avoid tangling alliances and it violates common sense.
As John Quincy Adams said...
"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
As a true libertarian, I wish freedom, independence, prosperity, and happiness to all people of all nations, but would not allow the U.S. military to win it for any people of any nation but our own because it violates the Constitution and because freedom won by others does not last. When someone gives something to you, you don't value it as much as if you have earned it for yourself. In fact with opponents of freedom like UG in our midst, freedom and liberty don't last very long even when you do win it for yourself.
UG would claim that we went into Iraq to "liberate the Iraqi people" which is utter bullshit. The reasons for that blatantly unconstitutional and immoral war changed from week to week and none of them was to liberate the Iraqi people. First they said that Saddam had weapons, which he did not. But even if he did, this does not make him a threat to America. Merely owning a weapon does not make someone a threat. Using UG's pathetic and poor excuse for logic, it would be ok for me to gun someone down because I saw a bump in their pocket that MIGHT be a gun, and they MIGHT use it against me. Using his logic, I can go around killing anyone who MIGHT have the power to harm me...if at some point they decided to in the future.
UG's lack of logic, education, reason, honesty, courage, integrity, character, sanity, and moral fiber are snowballing and making him a truly sad, pathetic, and impotent little man. He's a sociopath and a moron with an inflated ego. And that's a bad combination.
Don't help anyone, ever - thats the libertarian way? :headshake
No. Don't use the military to help other people. That isn't the role of the military. If private citizens want to help, nobody should stop them. If they want to give money, food, supplies, guns, or even themselves to help people, that's fine. Just don't use the U.S. military to do it, and only do it if asked to do it. That is the libertarian way.
Guns? I don't think that is legal under current law.
It should be legal. If I want to donate my guns to people in Israel to defend themselves, I should be able to do it. If you want to donate your guns to people on the other side of that conflict, you should be able to. It's your property.
You're not going to get them out from under a autocratic/military oppressor if you don't use the military to help. You need enough force, and no political philosopher I am aware of takes the view that this somehow "isn't the role of the US military." It makes no odds morally or legally whether such oppression removal is performed by men in uniform or men in civvies -- and the men in the uniforms do have the skills kept current and the equipment to prevail. When things get violent between nation-states, those who would prevail need the organizations to do the job.
The libertarian way is Liberty, Radar. Complaining about how it's done is simply nuts. Leaving our fellow creatures under tyranny's yoke is even nuttier, for it's also an amoral thing to do.
I see you are once again monomaniacally repeating your contentions that actually doing anything in American interest with the military is somehow unconstitutional. This idea is not supported anywhere in the Constitution, which you manifestly don't want to understand, owing to narcissism. I do understand the Constitution's words. You're wrong, you can't back your idea and you never can prove it; fuck off hard, fast and far, and do it now, you anticonstitutionalist, strict-obstructionist son of a none too choosy bitch hyena with purple spots. You despise freedom because what you want, deep down, is slaves. I, for one, decline this dubious honor.
disagrees with me == traitor
Man, you've got some serious tinfoilishness going on there, UG.
No no no, Dar. While I would now put no perfidy past this kooky pseudoexpert Radar, disagrees with me usually equals dumbshit. That ain't tinfoil -- look at the crap he has for ideas. Banging on me does not make you right or righteous, and Radar is mighty short on either. The poor fool thought
Obama was the most libertarian candidate. Since Obama is doing one comprehensive job of being the anti-libertarian, you wonder what else Radar's got wrong. This guy helped to fuck my Republic over, and I resent it.
Though too, those who are unmistakably patriotic do agree with me a lot.
disagrees with me usually equals dumbshit.
You're not helping yourself here.
The Libertarian way does not include using a DEFENSIVE military to start unwarranted, unprovoked, and unconstitutional attacks against other nations simply because they do not accept what YOU think libertarianism is. You have no clue what libertarianism actually is because it is based on the non-aggression principle and self-ownership/self-determination which you are clearly against.
You obviously don't think the people of other nations should be able to determine for themselves what form of government to have and you think you know better than they do what they should have.
The libertarian way is not using force other than in your own defense....PERIOD.
The military is by no means confined to a "DEFENSIVE" rôle, Radar. Never has been. The "non-aggression principle" -- one I cannot imagine you ever practicing were you ever to gain a position of responsible (or irresponsible) power -- is one designed to sabotage libertarianism's advance in the world, and keep the party a mere debating society. Such parlour exercises are not politics. Not effectual politics anyway. In the lion's share of cases, it would be moot anyway, as those places that need libertarianism most are guaranteed to order government goons in -- to commit aggression, to be sure. Okay, so they start it. So? How many casualties do you take so you can be comfortable? Where's the brains in ceding the initiative to the opposition? How about if you're one of the casualties? I don't see you volunteering for martyrdom any time soon. Your picture on Technorati says you're a little too well upholstered to be the sort to make this sacrificial sternness likely.
You, amigo, obviously think less-than-democracy is acceptable. I say, "Never!" Then I say you are no libertarian, but a fascist and fascist sympathizer, in accordance with the nature of your soul.
And in any case, there's also what Technorati's site says about you. Pretty much matches my understanding of your intellectual attainments.
You're not helping yourself here.
Clearly you're not getting it yet, Dar.
Some intelligent people have disagreed with me intelligently. The dumbshits disagree with me more often, more vehemently, and in a case or two more madly as well. I also see a
lot of intellectual dishonesty in the opposition (which I will not claim as exclusively "my" opposition).
Some people's thinking is really twisted by their ideology. For example, Redux recently chided me for calling policies I dislike "socialist." He really thought
that was how I viewed the matter. He completely misses the idea that a policy's socialist features would be the very reason I disapprove! :headshake There isn't much you can do with a bright man who is being kept so silly, so not-with-it. So stupid. There, I said it. And there, I probably will keep on saying it.
UG....two (multiple part) questions for you.
Do you accept the principles of a
"just war"? Was Iraq a "just war" when it posed no direct threat to the US and when the US invasion resulted in an estimated 100,000 civilian deaths and 2-4 million displaced persons/refugees?
And why Iraq and not North Korea, China, Myanmar or even Cuba? Is it the US role to invade those countries to promote democracy? If not, where do you make the distinction?
Some people's thinking is really twisted by their ideology. For example, Redux recently chided me for calling policies I dislike "socialist." He really thought that was how I viewed the matter. He completely misses the idea that a policy's socialist features would be the very reason I disapprove! :headshake There isn't much you can do with a bright man who is being kept so silly, so not-with-it. So stupid. There, I said it. And there, I probably will keep on saying it.
Or perhaps you are too blinded by your own ideology to recognize and accept or acknowledge the distinctions between socialism (at its very core, controlling or owning the means of production for the long term benefit of the people) and economic liberalism (regulating or in the worst case, managing the means of production as a short term economic policy).
recognize and accept or acknowledge the distinctions between socialism (at its very core, controlling or owning the means of production for the long term benefit of the people)
and economic liberalism (regulating or in the worst case, managing the means of production as a short term economic policy).
good distinction.
