Stupid Brits. http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/29/they-s...

By your very posting.

and the theme keeps on going...

Yes, those are the ones who buy into Monckton's distortions (recurring theme here), and are the ones who need to be minded, Sprout.
.
Take for example the fact that there is no completed treaty yet, and negotiations are stalling. Only an in-progress draft exists. Yet Monckton insists that it will be signed this December (what will be signed, if anything, is an agreement to meet later).
.
Then consider that, if the final language reflects what Monckton says, and if the treaty is signed by Obama (which he has publicly stated he would not do if not in a form acceptable to Congress), the Senate must then ratify it by at least garnering 67 favorable votes.
.
Finally, our "sovereignty", as the video title states (our "freedom...democracy...prosperity", as Monckton outlandishly puts it), is not at threat from a climate treaty. Our form of government has no role in such matters, and were a final treaty to stipulate such, we would not be signing it, obviously. Furthermore, Monckton's lie that "neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect would have any power whatsoever to take it back again" is absurd, given that any treaty can be broken. What? Is the U.N. going to invade the U.S. for backing out of a climate treaty? Or is it going to be that conspiracy theory "one-world government" that doesn't actually exist? A joke, all around.
.
The very fact that Monckton claims Obama is a communist who will sign anything is all that is needed to display his obvious bias. Add to that the fact that the Heritage Foundation admitted that Monckton had "perhaps overstated a bit", and we can readily dismiss this youtube clip.

Stupid Americans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu...

Hey you're right, good for you.

Even a broken watch is correct twice a day...

Distortion: A statement that twists fact; a misrepresentation...

Oh, you're more than welcome!

Haha..."silence"? Distortion - because life's easier when you only see what you want to!

An even lower status for this administration on decalaring war on FOX. Whether you agree or disagree with what Fox saids, how shameful of an administration to try and silence criticism/opposition in that fashion. This administration must be worried about something if they fear Fox.

lol, Thanks!

That's true for the lion leading, because after a battle, he will not go hungry. Happy lion.

“An army of asses led by a lion is better than an army of lions led by an ass"

You're making an excellent example of yourself so far; keep it up!

"Who is this particular use of ad hominem (of many) in reference to? Not that it matters, as your use of name-calling only diminishes your standing, and isn't actually a topic of discussion; I'm just curious is all.”

-

Your explanantion is as laughable as your attmpt at labling a definition un-credible (source you thought it came from...yeah, right).

Disregarding how you want to parse your own words, if you say it doesn't matter and is not part of the discussion why bring it up? Other than to reclaim the victim card one more, of many times.

"No assumption was made."

If the assumption was not made, how did you come to your false conclusion?

"Your provided definition can be found, verbatim, at Yahoo!Answers through a search on Google. It also happens to be the first option that comes up in that search (matching your thinking, which posits that the first/quickest option is the one that must be chosen)."

It stands to reason a person does not type a definition in search of a word, but types a word to look at the definition. The fact you typed in the definition with the attempt to look for the source shows you doubted the authenticity of the provided definition; so much for that self-professed education.

"Not to mention you failed to deny it to be the source or provide the actual source."

I did provide the source (at least 6 times), after your misguided attempt at declaring it meritless and by your disbelief it was a true definition. You so doubted the definition you searched for its origination. My very next post did provide the source [Oct 19, 2009 at 7:58 a.m.], still you did not accept it. Your next post [Oct 19, 2009 at 3:33 p.m.] continued this spiral declaring the source of the site I used was not a dictionary and of the same caliber as your first declared un-credible site---if they are both of the same caliber simple deduction is both are un-credible. It was then explained to you the reference for the definition on the site I provided came from the American Heritage Dictionary...and the tap dance continued. Bottom line I provided you a definition to a word you posted (after you did---yes just to get under your skin), you disliked being questioned and overreacted and declared my definition as meritless and un-credible; without knowing the definition I provided came from a source your beloved princton accepts and was from a respected and revered edition of a publication any liberal arts loving educator would accept.

"These things, collectively, give more support to my suggestion of where the definition likely came from than pure assumption."

Yeah...ok.

"The liberal arts are a form of higher education."
-
They are also a form of kindergarten education, yet I never declared that in the conversation either. You drew the distinction between liberal arts as higher education not I.

"where is the dishonesty you complained of?"
.
It's here. Oct 23, 2009 at 2:23 a.m. - In this post you altered my full sentence of "Not that it matters, as your use of name-calling only diminishes your standing, and isn't actually a topic of discussion; I'm just curious is all" by dishonestly removing a section to make it read instead as "Not that it matters, as your use of…(ad hominem)…isn't actually a topic of discussion."
.
"You are the one that linked the definitions provided to ad hominem and then to name calling."
.
Incorrect. To demonstrate:
.
"Who is this particular use of ad hominem in reference to? Not that it matters..."
.
Here we see that "it" refers to whom you are referencing in your definition, not the use of ad hominem.
.
"If you look close you will find many, as I don’t have the time or inclination to spell check..."
.
Are you sure?
.
"And for the record I spell 'suppliment' with an 'e'…thought you would like to know"
.
You don't have the time or inclination to spell check? I guess you meant for your posts?
There's also strong reason to believe you do take the time to spell check, at least sporadically, as you sometimes have altered quotation marks that result from text that's been copied from a word processor program and pasted into the comment box.
.
An example - Here you quote me, with quotes that are noticeably curved: “you have no choice but to take what Google gives you the quickest? Illogical. Again, you went searching for a definition, and that resource was the best you could manage, as YOU choose it from the numerous search results provided, not Google”
.
Yet, here you also quote me, with uncurved quotes: "that resource was the best you could manage"
.
Why isn't the appearance of your quotation marks uniform? Funny, huh?
.
Speaking of, the fun in highlighting just some of your numerous grammatical errors was knowing it simultaneously highlighted your hypocritical and shallow point. But your confession that your goal here is to "get under (my) thin skin" only illustrates, in addition to your deterioration into pure fallacy and falsehood, that you truly are done as you have nothing substantial left to offer for consideration or discussion. I look forward to any subsequent posts from you exemplifying this fact.

"These comments were directed towards you and about you."
.
And about liberal arts.
.
"If my words were meant to diminish or disparage higher education I would have said higher education"
.
You did. The liberal arts are a form of higher education.
.
"You made the assumption of where my provided definition came from"
.
No assumption was made. Your provided definition can be found, verbatim, at Yahoo!Answers through a search on Google. It also happens to be the first option that comes up in that search (matching your thinking, which posits that the first/quickest option is the one that must be chosen). Not to mention you failed to deny it to be the source or provide the actual source. These things, collectively, give more support to my suggestion of where the definition likely came from than pure assumption.
.
"declared it not credible"
.
Yahoo!Answers as a dictionary source? Yes, it's not credible as such.
.
"and then meritless."
.
A word definition derived from Yahoo!Answers? Yes, that would make it meritless.
.
"After you were provided with the true source"
.
This is a lie, as I was never provided with the true source.
.
"you then state you never said it was meritless or un-credible."
.
What is "it" in this sentence? Provide the quote, in full, where I said this. If "it" refers to AHD, you will find no statement in which I claimed AHD to be "meritless or un-credible."
.
"Disregarding the fact of where the definition in question was received"
.
Where was it "received", again? You never did say.
.
"your claim of not credible and meritless is wrong"
.
My claim that Yahoo!Answers is not a credible dictionary source, and that definitions derived from it are meritless? That is a correct claim.
.
"So make up your mind. If one is un-credible the other, by using the same words, must also be."
.
Yahoo!Answers is not a credible source for definitions, and "definitions" derived from it are therefore meritless. This is regardless of whether content found there is correct or not. If it is correct, then it can also be found in another credible source, which should be cited instead, thereby giving it merit.
.
All this ignores that I've already proven that my use of fallacy and falsehood was not redundant, despite your disingenuous insinuation that only the definition you provide is the correct/intended one (though you did contradict yourself by admitting that there are many definitions of each word).

Thanks for catching my spelling errorrrrs. If you look close you will find many, as I don’t have the time or inclination to spell check or for that matter reference undergrad writing sources or grammar checkers when I post on a message or blog spot.

The fun in high lighting just one of your misspellings was knowing it would get under your thin skin.

“Try not to remove segments of my quotes next time to alter them dishonestly.”

Really? Dishonestly? This will be fun, let’s do it again.

You stated: “Those are some nice definitions, RetiredAirForce. Who is this particular use of ad hominem (of many) in reference to? Not that it matters, as your use of name-calling only diminishes your standing, and isn't actually a topic of discussion; I'm just curious is all.” [The definitions you are referring are for the word blowhard]

I responded: “The “victim” of the ad hominem is you, of course…can’t be a victim unless you complain of it, right? For the record, if it is not a matter for discussion why do you constantly bring it up? Interesting also you then write to another poster; “the accuser loses the argument. As you have just done”…hmmm.”

Then you state: “Where did I say your use of ad hominem was not a matter for discussion? I haven't. I did, however, state that the identity of whomever your definitions of "blowhard" applied to didn't matter, and that I only asked out of personal curiosity, apart from meaningful discussion.”

I then provided you did say “not that it matters”, yet you still bring it up. Your twisted words, all as you provided them…where is the dishonesty you complained of? You are the one that linked the definitions provided to ad hominem and then to name calling.

Let’s address your continued denial of late over your statement of a simple word definition.

“What is your source for this definition? It appears you have taken it from Yahoo!Answers. This is not a credible source; your definition is meritless.”

You made the assumption of where my provided definition came from, declared it not credible, and then meritless. After you were provided with the true source you then state you never said it was meritless or un-credible.

Disregarding the fact of where the definition in question was received your claim of not credible and meritless is wrong…even if you went to the site yahoo site you stated and found it. Fact, this is the exact definition provided in the American Heritage Dictionary, again a reference from your regarded source of princton. If you are claiming the definition you found at yahoo matched the very on I provided---they are both correct and are credible.

So make up your mind. If one is un-credible the other, by using the same words, must also be.

“Also, previous attempts by you to discredit higher education: "only a self professed liberal arts backboned blowhard..." "only a snooty buffoon with a liberal arts background..." "Snobbery = Thinking a downloadable dictionary from Princeton is a credible source for word definitions..."
-
Again you assume words not used there skippy. These comments were directed towards you and about you. The fact that you express a possession of the background is again about you. If my words were meant to diminish or disparage higher education I would have said higher education and excluded you from the comment.

What's your point, Pete? Charles Manson was an effective leader, too. Just because you're a great pied piper doesn't mean it's a positive attribute.
Case in point: Reagan was also one of the most detrimental presidents this country has had.

Also, previous attempts by you to discredit higher education:
.
"only a self professed liberal arts backboned blowhard..."
.
"only a snooty buffoon with a liberal arts background..."
.
"Snobbery = Thinking a downloadable dictionary from Princeton is a credible source for word definitions..."

"Duh"
.
"Duh", indeed, as that quote doesn't reference to the AHD, but to Yahoo!Answers.
.
"Duh"
.
"Duh", indeed, as "it (who your ad hominem references to)" is what isn't a matter of discussion. Try not to remove segments of my quotes next time to alter them dishonestly.
.
"You did and now you just stated it as being one of your dictionary sources."
.
Wrong. Re-read: "Only it wasn't a 'dictionary source', but instead a supplement to my dictionary source."
.
"I spell 'suppliment' with an 'e'…"
.
Good point. Let's be thorough, shall we?
.
"To bad the official unveiling of the other 204 is kept secret by the committee for 50 years."
.
I spell 'too' with two Os.
.
"at least your are consistent in your victim hood."
.
I spell 'you're' with an apostrophe and an 'e', or write the words 'you are' without a second 'r.' I write 'victimhood' as one word.
.
"And the dog is back chasing it's tail."
.
I use the proper form of 'its'. The dog is chasing it is/has tail?.
.
"happens only as the dog is chasing it’s tail"
.
I still use the proper form of 'its.'
.
"your comments always meet you level of explanation"
.
I spell 'your' with an 'r.'
.
"don't tell the word smith"
.
I write 'wordsmith' as one word.
.
"then wonder off."
.
I spell 'wander' with an 'a.'
.
"You also introduced a downloadable dictionary from princton"
.
I spell 'Princeton' with an 'e', and capitalize it as it's a proper noun.
.
"but feel free to keep making assumtions."
.
I spell 'assumptions' with a 'p.'
.
Funny the things your spell checker doesn't pick up, huh?
.
"You’re missing the point here skippy."
.
You have a point? Do share.
.
"I never said no one else would, I said you did; and the correlation still fits."

Clarify what correlation you're referring to. You actually never said I did anything. You did, however, imply that no one else but "a liberal arts major" would think of using a downloadable dictionary from Princeton and an undergraduate writing guide by asking who else would do so.
.
"You can start with the one you claimed came from an un-credible source."
.
Yahoo!Answers is an un-credible source. It's not second-guessing to identify a so-called "definition" sourced from Yahoo!Answers to be meritless.
.
"Discrediting your obvious liberal background"
.
You've done no such thing.
.
"and yes you are a blowhard"
.
Ad hominem irrelevant to the explanation of how "higher learning" equals "liberal."
.
"is a far stretch from discrediting higher education. The fact that you are a liberal and have a liberal arts background are both true. No further argument by me has been made"
.
Lie. "In this case, you, liberal arts does equal liberal."
.
So, again: how, exactly, does 'higher learning' equal 'liberal'? You cannot show that, because I both am liberal and of a liberal arts background, the latter inherently lead to (equals) the former. Or is it your argument that only liberals have a liberal arts education?

“Also, I'm still waiting on you to explain how, exactly, "higher learning" equals "liberal." Is it your argument that only liberals have a liberal arts education?”
-
I see you skip over comments already made…I posted this once already to make it easy for you I will post it again. “Discrediting your obvious liberal background, and yes you are a blowhard, is a far stretch from discrediting higher education (learning).”

The fact that you are a liberal and have a liberal arts background are both true. No further argument by me has been made; but feel free to keep making assumtions.

“Example of a definition that I've "second-guessed"?”
-
You can start with the one you claimed came from an un-credible source.

“Who else besides a college student/graduate? Gee, I guess absolutely no one, ever, could possibly do such a thing. Again, what is your grievance with higher education?”
-
You’re missing the point here skippy. I never said no one else would, I said you did; and the correlation still fits.

“Only it wasn't a "dictionary source", but instead a suppliment to my dictionary source,”
-
Huh? You did and now you just stated it as being one of your dictionary sources. And for the record I spell “suppliment” with an “e”…thought you would like to know as you love to look at references, dictionaries. and grade papers.

“Where did I say your use of ad hominem was not a matter for discussion?”
-
Duh…”Not that it matters, as your use of…(ad hominem)…isn't actually a topic of discussion”

“A lie, as I never have stated any such thing.”
-
Duh…” This is not a credible source; your definition is meritless.”

"The 'victim' of the ad hominem is you, of course…can’t be a victim unless you complain of it, right?"
.
Why is 'victim' in quotes? What complaints? I have, however, acknowledged your use of it, and its detriment to your (lack of an) argument, if that's what you're referring to.
.
"For the record, if it is not a matter for discussion why do you constantly bring it up?"
.
Where did I say your use of ad hominem was not a matter for discussion? I haven't. I did, however, state that the identity of whomever your definitions of "blowhard" applied to didn't matter, and that I only asked out of personal curiosity, apart from meaningful discussion.
.
"You are the one that introduced an undergraduate writing guide as reference for a word definition; an odd use for a dictionary source."
.
Only it wasn't a "dictionary source", but instead a suppliment to my dictionary source, which expounded on what fallacies are, as per the definition of my use of that word. In what way is that "odd"?
.
"You also introduced a downloadable dictionary from princton"
.
Which WAS my dictionary source. Is THAT "odd"? Why are you so opposed to a Princeton-sourced definition?
.
"stating my definition from the American Heritage Dictionary was un-credible."
.
A lie, as I never have stated any such thing.
.
"Who else, but someone other than a liberal arts major would think of these?"
.
Who else besides a college student/graduate? Gee, I guess absolutely no one, ever, could possibly do such a thing. Again, what is your grievance with higher education?
.
"The consistent second guessing of word definitions used by others is another trait, exhibited by you"
.
Example of a definition that I've "second-guessed"?
.
"exhibits an incessant need to correct reports, be an editor, or simulate a teacher grading papers"
.
"Reports"? You mean your fallacies, falsehoods, and improper use of words due to your apparent lack of understanding of definitions? Your biased-driven opinions, void of logic or evidence? I do correct those things, though hardly out of an "incessant need". Honesty is the best policy, after all. I simply try to adhere to that when possible. Sorry.
.
"To the correlation with of your stances, positions, comments, ideas, word definitions, and attitudes toward others with Darwin; what else to say but it is true."
.
It IS true; they HAVE correlated, so far, in this discussion. And?
.
"If you or others think this means I think you are he/she or he/she is you"
.
I've never said anything to indicate this.
.
"it is interesting you two share so much in common."
.
"So much"? You mean like our opinion of you? Again, it may be interesting to you, but it shouldn't be surprising.
.
Also, I'm still waiting on you to explain how, exactly, "higher learning" equals "liberal." Is it your argument that only liberals have a liberal arts education?

And Reagan was quite good at it. Kind of insulted himself, huh?

The “victim” of the ad hominem is you, of course…can’t be a victim unless you complain of it, right? For the record, if it is not a matter for discussion why do you constantly bring it up? Interesting also you then write to another poster; “the accuser loses the argument. As you have just done”…hmmm.

The use of liberal arts to your liberal stance is an easy relationship to make. You are the one that introduced an undergraduate writing guide as reference for a word definition; an odd use for a dictionary source. You also introduced a downloadable dictionary from princton stating my definition from the American Heritage Dictionary was un-credible. Who else, but someone other than a liberal arts major would think of these?

The consistent second guessing of word definitions used by others is another trait, exhibited by you, that further distinguishes your liberal arts back ground; exhibits an incessant need to correct reports, be an editor, or simulate a teacher grading papers…that is more an issue for Freud than this blog/comment section.

Lastly, you are a liberal. Any questions of this have long ago been answered.

To the correlation with of your stances, positions, comments, ideas, word definitions, and attitudes toward others with Darwin; what else to say but it is true. If you or others think this means I think you are he/she or he/she is you, would be your idea and not one I made. I simply pointed out the observation; it is interesting you two share so much in common.

Typical Zoom say something, don't back it up...then wonder off.

Without saying anything? Impossible. You inherently say things when you speak words.
.
Silly...

inconvenienttruth & zoom - you two remind me of the Abbott & Costello skit - Who's on first. You can go on & on & on & on - all without saying anything. Amazing.

Good job, Zoom! You "won"! Hahaha

tiredofhearing, I think you are also commenting as RAF. I've won the argument!

RAF, one doesn't have to present "facts" to make a comment, as you've demonstrated on numerous occasions. My comment was an opinion, and acurate, judging by your reaction to it.

Actually, you'd be wrong, tiredofhearingit. When someone baselessly accuses another, without evidence, as an excuse to fall back from reasoned and credible discussion and instead rest comfortably on the crutch of rhetorical fallacies (thereby self-discrediting in the process), the accuser loses the argument. As you have just done.
.
This happens to be my only account, with which I've been able to display credible and well-reasoned refutations, as supported by logic/evidence, in response to the most egregious fallacious opinions here, which are largely driven by bias and emotion. I have no need for another account when this one suits me so well.

Those are some nice definitions, RetiredAirForce. Who is this particular use of ad hominem (of many) in reference to? Not that it matters, as your use of name-calling only diminishes your standing, and isn't actually a topic of discussion; I'm just curious is all.
.
"In this case, you, liberal arts does equal liberal."
.
Really? "Are you here to back your claims, or just say something without facts and depart"? How, exactly, does higher learning equal liberal? Is it your argument that only liberals have a liberal arts education? Interesting...

Zoom: actually, I think you've WON the arguement when you call someone out for using 2 different user names & completely discredit that person - you LOOSE the arguement when you have to backup your words with those of "another name" just to make it appear your credible and know what your talking about. Thus earning him the title "blowhard"

"..my advanced degree has me working hard at a good paying job where I get to help people. So, I haven't been on."

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Zoom, are you here to back your claims or just say something without facts and depart?

Blowhard: Windbag. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar....

Blowhard: A very boastful (= exhibiting self-importance) and talkative person. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web...

Blowhard: A boaster or braggart. Source: from the uncredible...The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Answers.com 22 Oct. 2009. http://www.answers.com/topic/blowhard

In this case, you, liberal arts does equal liberal.

You've lost the argument when you start whining that someone is using a different username.

1. Rhetorical fallacies don't "discredit" anyone other than the person using them.
.
2. Liberal arts =/= liberal.
.
Liberal arts: studies intended to provide general knowledge and intellectual skills, rather than occupational or professional skills. See humanistic discipline, humanities, liberal arts, arts.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web...
.
Liberal arts: college or university studies (as language, philosophy, literature, abstract science) intended to provide chiefly general knowledge and to develop general intellectual capacities (as reason and judgment) as opposed to professional or vocational skills.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
.
3. It might be interesting to you that Darwin and I agree on this issue, but it shouldn't be surprising. Many people would easily agree you're in way over your head.

Discrediting your obvious liberal background, and yes you are a blowhard, is a far stretch from discrediting higher education (learning). It is interesting you and Darwin agree on many things.

"RAF doesn't like anything associated with higher learning" - darwin1
.
"Glad to see you still speak untruths when you get a chance." - RetiredAirForce
.
Examples of those "untruths":
.
"only a self professed liberal arts backboned blowhard..."
.
"only a snooty buffoon with a liberal arts background..."
.
"Snobbery = Thinking a downloadable dictionary from Princeton is a credible source for word definitions..."
.
hmmmm

Seriously?? LOL.

"RAF doesn't like anything associated with higher learning"
-
Glad to see you still speak untruths when you get a chance.

DizzyGirl, my advanced degree has me working hard at a good paying job where I get to help people. So, I haven't been on. However, it is nice to see that you are thinking of me. How sweet.

Guys, RAF doesn't like anything associated with higher learning so he won't like Princeton anything. He doesn't like economic socialism but loves intellectual socialism.

"your definition is meritless"
-
hmmmm

"answers.com isn't a dictionary, it's a question and answer site (just like Yahoo!Answers)...it says so right below the title/header."
-
hmmmm

And that's the unfortunate part. Whether intentional or not, your ignorance is bad enough, let alone you enjoy displaying it.

Lol, I love this

"You posted Oct 18 at 7:48 PM 'What is your source for this definition? It appears you have taken it from Yahoo!Answers. This is not a credible source; your definition is meritless.' In fact answer.com uses the Heritage Dictionary as its reference source for word definitions. Next time you might want to check things out before declaring absolutes and having to back track away from them."
.
First, Yahoo!Answers is not answers.com. You're not even talking about the same site anymore.
Second, your task was to quote where I had stated that I believe the American Heritage Dictionary is not credible. I see no quote of mine stating this. I don't even mention answers.com or AHD at all in that quote.
Third, I've not backtracked from any such thing. It may be you who might want to take that advice about checking things out before making absolute declarations.
.
In short, you've failed, on several levels.
.
"but don’t take my word for it, try it yourself; again the quickest method."
.
Again, you have no choice but to take what Google gives you the quickest? Illogical. You went searching for a definition, and that resource was the best you could manage, as YOU choose it from the numerous search results provided, not Google. The quickest option/method is not inherently the best option/method, and it is ultimately your choice in how you act on that. In this case, you acted poorly.
.
"Redundant; more than is needed, desired, or required. Repetition of same sense in different words."
.
Precisely. Again, see: "Have you caught that tail yet?"
.
"Funny how it does not exclude fallacy and falsehood?"
.
It's not funny; you admitted the very reason why those two words are not inherently redundant: There are "many definitions of each word."
To wit:
.
Fallacy: A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.
.
Falsehood: A fraudulent statement; deliberately deceptive.
.
There is no redundancy in the use of those words, as defined.
.
In your words, RetiredAirForce, "anything else?"

Thanks, Pastafarian. You too.

Ohh - sorry RAF I thought you were being sarcastic back then. OK sounds good, glad you learned something.

Pro is forgets so easy. I did post "Yes pro, the HAHAHAHA"s got to me. You are so right I am so wrong."

Anything else?

You all are silly

There is no time differencial between the earth and orbiting satalites - thats comic books stuff.
.
Science has not been hindered by religion. Specifically stem cell research in America was not hindered by religious beliefs.
.
RAF's clearly wrong opinions that he never owned up to, he will argue that he is correct until the end of time, even with proof to the contrary.

“you have no choice but to take what Google gives you the quickest? Illogical. Again, you went searching for a definition, and that resource was the best you could manage, as YOU choose it from the numerous search results provided, not Google”
-
Wrong again there skippy. I clicked on a link next to the word definition above the search results---but don’t take my word for it, try it yourself; again the quickest method.

From “your” credible princeton downloadable dictionary. Redundant; more than is needed, desired, or required. Repetition of same sense in different words. Funny how it does not exclude fallacy and falsehood?

“I believe that the American Heritage Dictionary isn't credible? Really? I'm sure you can quote me stating that, right?”
-
You posted Oct 18 at 7:48 PM “What is your source for this definition? It appears you have taken it from Yahoo!Answers. This is not a credible source; your definition is meritless.”

In fact answer.com uses the Heritage Dictionary as its reference source for word definitions. Next time you might want to check things out before declaring absolutes and having to back track away from them.

"let's see what were those two redundant terms...oh yes, fallacy and falsehood."
.
Sorry, but they're not redundant as used. This has already been proven, and your repeated insistence to the contrary only displays your ignorance. As you already admitted, there are "many definitions of each word", so it is illogical to act as if the two words are unquestionably similar enough to be assumed redundant.
.
"Your falsehood is thinking this was the best that could be done by anyone"
.
Incorrect. My actual claim was that "your provided definition came from an online search of your own, as you pulled it from a Yahoo questions site. You went searching for a definition, and that resource was the best you could manage." You hardly represent "anyone." I'm actually very confident that many people could have done better than you.
.
"when in reality it was the quickest from google; took 0.07 seconds by their own numbers"
.
So...you have no choice but to take what Google gives you the quickest? Illogical. Again, you went searching for a definition, and that resource was the best you could manage, as YOU choose it from the numerous search results provided, not Google.
.
"we know you will say I am still wrong and only a self professed liberal arts backboned blowhard would know the true meaning of words from a downloadable dictionary."
.
We? How many people do you consider yourself to be? And, yes, you are still wrong in insisting that my use of 'fallacy' and 'falsehood' was redundant. More immature ad hominem and appeal to ridicule from you here, and nothing more.
.
"Your fallacy is perpetuating your ill conceived notion."
.
What ill-conceived notion? The one you created and falsely attributed to me? So...my so-called "fallacy" is the lies that you fabricate about me?
.
"Snobbery = Thinking a downloadable dictionary from Princeton is a credible source for word definitions"
.
Which it is.
.
"and believing the American Heritage Dictionary, used for word definitions at answers.com, is not credible"
.
I believe that the American Heritage Dictionary isn't credible? Really? I'm sure you can quote me stating that, right?
.
Redundant: see "Have you caught that tail yet?"
.
So, are you actually planning on making a point here any time soon, or do you just enjoy having me publicly embarrass you while you fumble with semantics and rhetorical fallacies? Because I can do this as long as you'd like.

"that resource was the best you could manage"
-
lol, let's see what were those two redundant terms...oh yes, fallacy and falsehood.

Your falsehood is thinking this was the best that could be done by anyone, when in reality it was the quickest from google; took 0.07 seconds by their own numbers...but, we know you will say I am still wrong and only a self professed liberal arts backboned blowhard would know the true meaning of words from a downloadable dictionary. Your fallacy is perpetuating your ill conceived notion.

I know both of these are redundant; I purposely placed them here for your --- no really my --- enjoyment.

Snobbery = Thinking a downloadable dictionary from Princeton is a credible source for word definitions and believing the American Heritage Dictionary, used for word definitions at answers.com, is not credible while not realizing the same American Heritage dictionary used by answers.com is also listed on a Princeton electronic resources web site as an available electronic resource…

Have you caught that tail yet?

"Pot calling the kettle black again..."
.
Um...yes. RetiredAirForce's ridiculing of me for something that he also did IS an example of the pot calling the kettle black. You'll notice I mentioned that hypocrisy at the very begining of the post you quoted.
.
"In real life, InconvenientDarwinBabsSally, does anyone really like you??? No....I think not."
.
In real life? As opposed to...fake life? Yes, people like me just fine in real life, your thoughts (as meaningful as they are) regardless.
.
"I have an excuse for being on here all the time"
.
You mean aside from free will and entertainment? I didn't know an excuse was needed to use the Internet, something which most modern-living people use consistently throughout a normal day. But let's check out those excuses!
.
"I'm deployed"
.
That's an excuse to be online "all the time"? Explain. I'm also still waiting for you to state what exactly it is you do in Afghanistan that allows you to be online for hours at a time on your own personal laptop, which you claim to have constant access to.
.
"work at night mostly"
.
Again, that's an excuse to be online "all the time"? Explain.
.
"when not working I have nothing to do, and I'm bored."
.
Why? I'd ask if it's because no one likes you, but that's a ridiculous thing to suggest.
.
"You, however, simply have no life."
.
You're silly; of course I do. This, combined with your insistence that I must not be liked by other people, again shows the rationale behind all of your posts: attention, and approval.

"Either way, good job trying to ridicule me for that which you also did."
-
Pot calling the kettle black again....
-
In real life, InconvenientDarwinBabsSally, does anyone really like you??? No....I think not. I have an excuse for being on here all the time, I'm deployed, work at night mostly, when not working I have nothing to do, and I'm bored. You, however, simply have no life.

"Your circular logic"
.
What circular logic?
.
"based on the dribble before this statement"
.
There was no "dribble before this statement."
.
"is iconic to your ineffectual use of the English language"
.
Proof of this ineffectual use?
.
"you then claim use of two similar words are not redundant."
.
Incorrect. My actual claim: "Even if they were similar, that still wouldn't mean that they are inherently redundant." Are you not aware of the very sentences you quote?
.
"As to your sources for definitions you really are dense"
.
Dense? How so? Wait, nevermind; ad hominem is inherently illogical. Which is perfect for you and your apparent aversion to reason.
.
"only a snooty buffoon with a liberal arts background would think the only (credible?) source for definitions is a princeton online/downloadable dictionary or an undergrad writing reference out of the university of Texas."
.
Only "a snooty buffoon with a liberal arts background" (liberal arts background? You mean...a standard college education? *gasp* No! Not that!) would find a definition derived from Yahoo!Answers to be discreditable? More ad hominem, I see. Actually, the only fully credible definitions do come from dictionaries. As crazy as it sounds, there's a reason they exist.
.
"From 'your' credible princeton downloadable dictionary."
.
Redundant: see "how does that tail taste?"
.
"From your label of un-creditable, answers.com dictionary"
.
answers.com isn't a dictionary, it's a question and answer site (just like Yahoo!Answers). It has nothing to do with me; it says so right below the title/header.
.
"As for losing debates on the Sheriffs Department, turns out their position and my stance are still correct and factual according to current law"
.
Wrong. Seems you're the one who'll need to go back. The posts are still up, and your schooling in law by me is there for all to see.
.
"try again there mrs dictionary."
.
Of course; you wouldn't want to post without adding one last fallacy.

"But, shhh don't tell the word smith it will be searching for more online dictionaries."
.
Oh, the hypocrisy. Your provided definition came from an online search of your own, as you pulled it from a Yahoo questions site. You went searching for a definition, and that resource was the best you could manage. You might as well have just made up the definition yourself. Either way, good job trying to ridicule me for that which you also did.

No, DiGriz. It's extremely obvious that it's not, as the story has nothing to do with the Muslim world or outreach to it. And it's rather pitiful that you
.
A. really are so confused as to believe that it may be, or
B. are so petty as to lower yourself to a level of mock-stupidity in frustrated defiance of a reality which you can't refute, but only hide from behind your fallacies and falsehoods.
.
I see you're enjoying your wading, at least.

That is an astute self-assessment, Shopierehuh. I couldn't have described your posts any better myself.

Is this the "outreach to the Muslim world" you were talking about, Sally?
-
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...

"So, while we all appreciate your opinionated self-delusions,"
-
Unfortunately, Inconvenientdarwinbabs, we cannot extend the same courtesy to you, as we don't appreciate YOUR opinated self-delusions.

Shopierehuh, here is a goo read for you http://www.voltairenet.org/article162559.... But, shhh don't tell the word smith it will be searching for more online dictionaries.

“ Even if they were similar, that still wouldn't mean that they are inherently redundant”
-
Your circular logic, based on the dribble before this statement is iconic to your ineffectual use of the English language; after the entire minutia you then claim use of two similar words are not redundant. As to your sources for definitions you really are dense; only a snooty buffoon with a liberal arts background would think the only (credible?) source for definitions is a princeton online/downloadable dictionary or an undergrad writing reference out of the university of Texas.

From “your” credible princeton downloadable dictionary. Redundant; more than is needed, desired, or required. Repetition of same sense in different words.

From your label of un-creditable, answers.com dictionary. Redundant: Exceeding what is necessary or natural. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression.

This is yet another of the many examples of you claiming that others have yet to prove you wrong as you are always right…yeah ok, how does that tail taste?

As for losing debates on the Sheriffs Department, turns out their position and my stance are still correct and factual according to current law…go back and try again there mrs dictionary.

I am thankful that this is electronic media and not printed on paper. If it was the latter, vast areas would be deforested from the paper wasted by excess verbiage, ie, prattling on and on and never really saying anything. Yes, yipping and yapping like an ankle biter.

Yes, DiGriz, you certainly are done, as you continue to prove you have nothing else of substance to offer for consideration or discussion regarding this topic. All you have left are immature falsehoods and fallacies to be easily disproved or dismissed out of hand.
But try and enjoy wading around the shallow water with RetiredAirForce; we wouldn't want you two to struggle and become overwhelmed in more substantial, relevant water. Best you two played it safe. Buddy system!

Well, Shopierehuh, nothing says "non-statement" like making the hollow claim that Obama was awarded "for nothing", ad nauseum. My, that absolute accusation must've taken you quite a few seconds to phrase, huh? And, because you thought it up, it's so obviously true! Right? I mean, it couldn't possibly be a biased charge against Obama, removed from the Nobel Peace Prize aspect, could it? It's just that...I've still not seen anyone here actually substantiate the claim that Obama's "done nothing." So, while we all appreciate your opinionated self-delusions, here's the reality, irrefutable:
.
According to nobelprize.org, the Peace Prize has nothing to do with "achievement" per se, but is awarded to the nominee "who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind", and has worked for "fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Does Obama fit that description? Absolutely. Bestowing the award is simply the Committee's way of saying "we support your goals, whether achieved or in-progress, so here is some international prestige to put a little wind in your efforts' sails." That’s exactly why Obama recognized that "this prize reflects the kind of world that (past Laureates) and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."
.
Hmm. Looks like your opinion that Obama has done nothing/was awarded for nothing is unfounded and dismissable. But don't let me deter you from allowing your emotions to guide your future judgments. They're still likely of worth to you, if no one else.

Sally, your posts could fertilize all the fields in the Midwest....
-
I bet you look just like the guy fighting the kid's in the Warcraft episode of South Park.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTgtZJ0e_...
-
Not exactly what I was looking for, but the first scene is what I'm talking about....lol!

After all the non-statements by a certain overly verbose poster the joke remains. Someone got a NPP nomination for nothing and then got the NPP for the same. We all like a good joke.

"You can’t accept that you are indeed redundant"
.
Of course; I only accept logic and factual evidence. You've not proven this biased claim to be true. It remains false (and therefore unaccepted) until you do so.
.
"so you grasp for straws by posting two examples of many definitions of each word"
.
Grasp for straws? Explain how so. In reality, I simply provided the definitions of the two words as I used them, which you assumed to be redundant, in order to disprove your assertion of that assumption. You verify this by admitting there are "many definitions of each word," thus agreeing that the words as I used them, as clarified by my provided definitions, are decidedly not redundant.
.
"to desperately TRY to make yourself look less illogical than you already do."
.
Desperate? How so? That is an incorrect assessment as I easily and successfully gave the definition for both the words 'fallacy' and 'falsehood' as I used them; two words with two different defintions. There's nothing illogical at all in realizing they have differing meanings. It is illogical, however, to assume that they are unquestionably synonymous (especially considering your admission that there are "many definitions of each word") to the point of redundancy.
.
"Fallacy: A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference."
.
What is your source for this definition? It appears you have taken it from Yahoo!Answers. This is not a credible source; your definition is meritless. For validity: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web...

http://projects.uwc.utexas.edu/handouts/...
.
"trying to refute two simple words used by you have similar meanings."
.
Given the definitions of the words as used by me, they aren't similar. Even if they were similar, that still wouldn't mean that they are inherently redundant, as you assumed. Even similar words/definitions may hold subtle differences. Again, as you stated, there are "many definitions of each word."
.
So, is this how your bruised ego compensates for losing debates regarding Walworth County Sheriff's Department Deputies identities, the legality of torture in the U.S., and now DiGriz's attempt to guilt people for his voluntary choices/Obama's validity as a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize given that he meets the criteria? Is this the face of your shallow, emotional frustration?

You are so predictable. You can’t accept that you are indeed redundant so you grasp for straws by posting two examples of many definitions of each word to desperately TRY to make yourself look less illogical than you already do.

Fallacy: A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.

Falsehood: An untrue statement.

As I stated, a redundant literary stuttering example of your profound articulate abilities and another example of your repeated circle of nonsense by trying to refute two simple words used by you have similar meanings. Now chase your tail some more…I need another laugh.

"This joke of an award was Europe's way of getting Obama to behave the way they want."
.
"Europe" has nothing to do with this award. The Prize is given by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member panel appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. It has no weight among international governments. "Europe", as you call the Committee, has no more influence through bestowing it than Obama will have in accepting it.
.
"They have a plan for us and nominating Obama after only 14 days in office was part of their plan."
.
Who are "they"? "Europe", still? The entire continent nominated Obama? Because it certainly isn't the Committee that does the nominating. However, they do set the deadline for nominations. How does that specific date (14 days into office) assist in this "plan" of "Europe's", and what is the endgame?
.
"How can he be so bold as to put more boots on the ground in Afghanistan when he just won a peace prize?"
.
Wait... you mean Obama did something that "Europe" might disapprove of? And might do it again soon? I thought it was "Europe's plan" to give the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama in order to make him behave how they want him to. You admit then that the "plan"...failed?
.
"This award was a joke . . . Ronnie would have thumbed his nose at them and said 'Thanks, but no thanks!'"
.
Your ignorance is far more of a joke. Ronnie? Ronnie was too busy supplying chem/bio agents, CIA assistance and Rumsfeld-delivered assurances to Saddam, and negotiating arms sales to U.S. hostage-holding rogue state Iran in order to fund South American rebel terrorism, to be bothered with something like a Peace Prize. Suffice it to say, noses were thumbed at Ronnie.

"fallacy and falsehood; a redundant literary stuttering example of your meaningless dribble."
.
Yet another falsehood on your part.
.
Fallacy: A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.
.
Falsehood: A fraudulent statement; deliberately deceptive.
.
Speaking of "meaningless", are you sure you understand what the word 'redundant' means? I only ask as I fear I've already "decreed" too much "supreme knowledge" by correctly providing definitions for two words already; I dare not overstep my bounds in providing the correct definition of a third word, 'redundant', for you as well. You've made clear through your dramatic posts that your emotions are one of your top concerns, and I wouldn't want to embarrass/insult you by engaging you in linguistic-related topics again without your permission.
.
"Given up on facts and resorting to declarations of immaturity, while offering exquisite and adult derived comments (sarcasm; yes I had to spell it out for you, knowing full well you would have missed it without a picture)."
.
I've already proven my facts; they speak for themselves and I have no need to turn them into ad nauseum talking points or catchphrases, like "chasing your tail". You're free to go back and re-read them as you please if you want to reminisce about all the times my logically reasoned and evidenced posts have refuted your biased opinions. You all but admit my facts to be irrefutable through your lack of an attempt to successfully disprove any that I've provided on this topic. Instead, you petulantly splash at others from your position in your shallow wading pool, too scared to venture deeper.
.
"Just one more example of your inability to grasp the inane circles your comments represent."
.
Incorrect; it's not an example of any such nonsense, as you've not proven any so-called "inane circles" to exist, let alone be represented by my comments. It's merely a repeated fallacy on your part, existing only through biased perception.
.
"Do continue to post, I don’t want you to be 'done', as you declare"
.
No, no. YOU'RE done, as you continue to prove you have nothing else of substance to offer for consideration or discussion regarding this topic. All you have left are immature falsehoods and fallacies to be easily disproved and refuted. But don't worry about your misunderstanding of a simple sentence; I'm really starting to understand, through readings of your posts, your struggle with reading comprehension. You have my sympathy. Don't give up!

Lol, fallacy and falsehood; a redundant literary stuttering example of your meaningless dribble. Given up on facts and resorting to declarations of immaturity, while offering exquisite and adult derived comments (sarcasm; yes I had to spell it out for you , knowing full well you would have missed it without a picture). Just one more example of your inability to grasp the inane circles your comments represent. Do continue to post, I don’t want you to be “done”, as you declare…this comedy show must go on; unless you are too tired from chasing your tail.

This joke of an award was Europe's way of getting Obama to behave the way they want. They have a plan for us and nominating Obama after only 14 days in office was part of their plan. How can he be so bold as to put more boots on the ground in Afghanistan when he just won a peace prize? This award was a joke . . . Ronnie would have thumbed his nose at them and said "Thanks, but no thanks!"

Hey, RAF, did you catch what that pot said?? Sounded kind of racist to me....

Even your initial faulty opinions had more to offer than your recent displays of deterioration into pure fallacy and falsehood. Luckily, there is some merit to your immaturity: you two are now doing my work for me, by exemplifying my assertion that you are done and have nothing substantial left to offer for consideration or discussion. Keep up the good work; I couldn't have confirmed my assertion better myself!

A result of multiple lack-of-personalities...

Your delusions are gaining in strength, going from redefining snobbery, crying over ad hominem use, indignation over misperceived use of a noun, to now proclaiming a declaration of other posters being "done". How does that tail taste?

First Obama gets the peace prize - next thing you know americans won't be known for torture, what is the world coming to?

Why don't you just consolidate the three names I know you use? IT, Darwin1, Babs.
-
InconvenientDarwinBabs

Really. You and DiGriz both.

And... you're done.
-
Really?

Yip!! Yip!! Yip!!

And... you're done. Good-bye for now.

Keep trying to get that tail..in your case tale.

"You decree supreme knowledge of what you think I meant"
.
No, I "decree" obvious knowledge of what you wrote through inductive logic and context/reading comprehension. A teacher does not "decree supreme knowledge" by correcting a student using a word incorrectly. Linguistics is not approached or applied in the nilly-willy, do-as-you-please manner that you've displayed.
.
"even after I explained I used that word with purpose"
.
I've not denied you used it with purpose. I've just correctly pointed out that your use was incorrect, given the factual definition of the word "hyperbole", and the lack of a provided example which conforms to that definition. Likewise, I'm just as positive that Mike Tyson uses words with purpose all the time, but that doesn't mean that his use is always correct solely because he chose those words on purpose.
.
"I’d draw you a picture of a clue but you would then say it was the wrong color."
.
And this seems to be your trouble: You keep wishing you could draw a picture to express yourself more clearly. I wish you could, too, actually, as words obviously fail you (or, rather, you apparently fail to grasp them).
.
I'm also still waiting for you to specifically mention any instance in which I have refused/been unable to prove something to someone else's satisfaction. You've stated that the point of your post was to show that my comments always meet my own level of explanation, but not the standards of others. So unless you were lying, feel free to back up that point of yours with examples.

But "speaks so well," as Chris Rock says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkqwspFr3...

"The giant" is a tiny, tiny man with an enormous anger problem.

"And, again, I notice you still haven't mentioned specifically any instance in which I have refused/been unable to prove something to someone else's satisfaction."
-
You are truly dense. Your last post is just the latest example of such an instance. You decree supreme knowledge of what you think I meant, with the wrong word, even after I explained I used that word with purpose….I’d draw you a picture of a clue but you would then say it was the wrong color.

Hurry along now, your tail is getting away.

"I enjoy your posts in a sadistic way....to gauge the extent to which I'm getting under your skin......and marvel how you are drawn to me like a moth to a bright light. I love you, too." - DiGriz
.
Again, the admitted rationale behind all of DiGriz's posts: attention, and approval.

Oh, I'm positive you wanted to use the word 'hyperbole', RetiredAirForce. But, like I correctly pointed out, the disingenuous example which you applied the word 'hyperbole' to is not an example of hyperbole, but would in fact be hypocrisy, had your example been truthful. So, while you may have wanted to use hyperbole, it was an incorrect use. Unless you have an utter disregard or the meanings of words?
.
And, again, I notice you still haven't mentioned specifically any instance in which I have refused/been unable to prove something to someone else's satisfaction. You've stated that the point of your post was to show that my comments always meet my own level of explanation, but not the standards of others. So unless you were lying, feel free to back up that point of yours with examples.

If I wanted to use the word hypocrisy I would have. Most of your comments contain hypocrisy at some levels. I selected the word hyperbole because it showed the exaggeration of your absurdity.

Yes, we already know your comments always meet you level of explanation; that was the point of the comment. Please commence chasing your tale.

What a joke, he has done NOTHING, again wait till he has us all wearing uniforms and our kids have to salute his picture as they are brain washed.....LOL....I am kidding of course but it makes as much sence as he does winning the award....its a joke

Panama, that would make JAM very happy if Obama could pull that off. She said as much in one of her posts from August 27th:
-
"The federal government needs to run our healthcare system. They also need to nationalize all banks that are 'too big to fail'. We can't afford to continue allowing the current greedy healthcare providers to get rich on our hard-earned money. The big banks have already shown how much they care for us."
-
Sally, you need a bark collar. But, I enjoy your posts in a sadistic way....to gauge the extent to which I'm getting under your skin......and marvel how you are drawn to me like a moth to a bright light. I love you, too.

Actually JAM, it's just a booter and yard bird discussing the virtues of a military entirely funded by taxpayer money. Vatoloco fears a Global Socialist Order. I'm sure that's on Obamas to-do list right after he takes over all our banks, nationalizes our health care system and finally becomes Supreme Leader of Europe and Asia.

"I can understand that you must have been feeling pretty frustrated that NO ONE wants to listen to your tripe, and no one likes you at all."
.
Yea, because we have to keep a perspective on our priorities... The admitted rationale behind all of DiGriz's posts: attention, and approval.
.
And you actually have the temerity to call someone else a "lemming", DiGriz? The plank in your own eye...

"Which of these conflicts/wars did Obama help come to a close?"
.
You seem to be under the impression, vatoloco, that Obama was required to have helped close any conflicts/wars to be valid as a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, no such requirement exists. Obama was qualified under the only criteria that is relevant.

RetiredAirForce, not only is that NOT an example of "hyperbole" (it would be hypocrisy, if you were telling the truth), I also notice you haven't mentioned specifically any instance in which I have refused/been unable to prove something to someone's satisfaction. So, unless you were just writing nonsense, feel free to back up that accusation with examples.

Which of these conflicts/wars did Obama help come to a close?

Current Conflicts
Algeria Insurgency 1992 -->
Angola Cabinda 1975 -->
Burma Insurgency 1950 -->
China Senkaku Islands 1968 -->
China Spratly Islands 1988 -->
Colombia Insurgencies 1970s-->
Congo (Zaire) Congo War 1998-->
Georgia Civil War 1991-->
India Assam 1985 -->
India Kashmir 1970s-->
India Naxalite Uprising 1967 -->
Indonesia Aceh 1986 -->
Indonesia Kalimantan 1983 -->
Indonesia Maluku 1999 -
Indonesia Papua / West Irian 1963 -->
Israel Al-Aqsa Intifada 2000 -->
Israel Lebanon 2006 -->
Ivory Coast Civil War 2002 -->
Korea Korean War 1953 -->
Laos Hmong Insurgency 2000 -->
Moldova Transdniester 1991-->
Namibia Caprivi Strip 1966-->
Nepal Maoists 1996 -->
Nigeria Civil Disturbances 1997 -
Pakistan Baluchistan 2004 -
Peru Shining Path 1970s-->
Philippines Moro Uprising 1970s-->
Russia Chechen Uprising 1992 -->
Somalia Civil War 1991-->
Spain Basque Uprising 1970s-->
Sudan Darfur 1983 -->
Thailand Islamic Rebels 2001 -->
Turkey Kurdistan 1984 -->
Uganda Civil Conflict 1980 -->
United States Afghanistan 1980 -->
United States Djibouti 2001 -->
United States Iraq 1990 -->
United States Philippines 1898 -->
Uzbekistan Civil Disturbances 2005 -->
Yemen Sheik al-Houti 2004 -->

The fighters are used for ground attack. They mostly use the 20mm guns (explosive rounds) now that we've decided that JDAMS are not as polite.
-
Yes, a most momentous occasion, JAM. The whole world is comforted by the President's soothing words, as if he was rubbing their tummies.....

Two F-15's just took off!!!
-
LMAO!

DiGriz-

What is their (F15's and F16's) role right now? No fly zones? I suspect when the drones find something significant to bomb they send them in. What capabilities do the drones/predators have? They did a special on 20/20 on the the question of "how we might make a mistake" on striking our own people or even innocent civilians. The military said they are pretty accurate on their targets.

I guess it takes all kinds ...... just ask me.

This is truely a proud moment for all Americans when the current president is awarded such a prestigous award. I can't believe these numbskulls are talking about fighter jets in this historic article's blog.

The only fighters we have here are F-15 Strike Eagles and F-16's. Used to have A-10's, but they moved them to Kandahar. I got to check out and sit in an F-15 as a perk a couple weeks ago when I reenlisted, and I thought that was pretty cool. No F-22's here that I've seen. I have seen a B-1 Bomber take off that must have had mechanical problems, since they are not based here.

If you mean Reapers/Predator drones, yes, they take off from here all the time, and patrol the plateau at night in lieu of the Kiowa helicopters. What we don't see here, are Jiffy-pop looking helium balloons containing six-year-old boys.... Just saw that on AFN. Scary!

Hey Digriz_ Have you seen any Raptors in Afghanistan? I saw one at the Rockford airfest and man is that thing awesome. Pulsating vector thrust jet engines. What a sight and sound.

"we should engage and work with other nations who share our ideals of sovereignty and freedom"

France was really working with us when they did not allow us to use their airspace for our F-111 swept wing Ardvarks to bomb Libya in 1986. You call that working with other nations?

Stop smoking too much panamared, pendejo y estupido Panamared!

What, the Italians? I havn't seen an Italian on Bagram since I first got here in February. I saw a couple then, the guys with the huge plumes on their berets or whatever was below all the fluff. Anyway, I think it's common knowledge that we pay people off in certain towns. Surobi is a town east of here, btw, not a district as portrayed in the story. I don't know if any ISAF forces actively pay off the Taliban to leave them alone, but I wouldn't doubt it - it's possible. But, there's a lot of "anonymous source" speculation around here. Just about every story in Stars and Stripes Mideast Edition quotes an anonymous source, which to me is funny. It's almost as funny as it would be if someone were to use the term "ad hominem" in just about every one of their comments on gazettextra.....

WTF, is "Global Socialist Order"? Are you kidding? Seriously, the desire to work with others is now considered Socialism? When will the stupidity end! God forbid we should engage and work with other nations who share our ideals of sovereignty and freedom in an effort to rid the world of tyrants.

Say DiGriz, Look-out for your "allies" also.
+
//www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/15/italy-nato-afghanistan-taliban-payments.html

Please place your bread pudding in your pipe and smoke it! This prize merely represents an advance towards a Global Socialist Order.

Eh, I think this is fantastic. It improves the President's image in foreign countries, and boosts opinion of the United States after the corrosive Bush years. Plus, it adds 1.5 million dollars of good Norwegian currency to charities. I really don't see a down side to this except that it gives you pitchfork and torch brigades fodder for empty outrage, and some of you the chance to blog overbearingly in foreign languages.

Most people assume that government is broadly competent. The latest theory must have some sense in it, people say, or it would not be introduced. New theories which claim to be idealistic enjoy an aura and are given a chance. That is what happened under communism. Sufficient people enthusiastically supported the experiment to carry along the rest - with plentiful dollops of intimidation against anyone who became too vocal in opposition. Most people, once they have passively accepted an ideas system, dislike it being challenged, since it implies criticism of their judgement. Those who draw attention to flaws provoke psychological discomfort. Anger and perplexity is a common response. None of us likes to seem made to appear foolish, and especially when merely to hear the message is thought to put one at risk. Later on no one wishes to admit that they were ever a believer.

http://foster.20megsfree.com/439.htm

"But Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises, the newspaper said."
-
I stand corrected. There is proof that not all Norwegians are stupid. At least one of the committee members apparently attempted reason and common sense until (it can be assumed) bullied by the Labour Party members into going along with it, or, as is usually the case, just to shut them up. The two most vociferously in favor of giving the once presitgious prize to President Obama were the Labour Party representatives. Not surprising, considering that basically, the Labour Party of Norway are communists.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_L...
-
Way to go, Mr. President! The communists of the world love you. Quite an achievement for 9 months of nothing other than being yourself. Thanks for the appropos info, Andre!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...

sarahb1, don't worry about me hypocrite. If you have something to add to the blog, do it. But of course all you do is make snide remarks, never anything of substance. You know something about everything, right? There isn't a blog on this site you haven't commented on. Nosy busy body aren't you!

The award should have went to the Russian Pres cause the FOAB peace maker was developed on his watch and the USA's MOAB peace maker came under Bush's watch. Watching to see if Hillary can convince the Russians to help the USA and go back into Afghanistan with FOAB to help restore the peace.

Bet them Norwegians awarded the prize to the Pres cause they knew the only way to world peace is to rid it of the infidel killen fanatics and the Pres is gettin ready to use F-A-E to smoke em outa their caves.

It's him.

I don't think "inconvenienttruth" is "darwin1", but I would like to know who killed off "andre".

Lemming.

I'm wondering why the Gazette lets cowards post obviously hateful posts in other languages, and doesn't delete the posts, or their account.

Lol. The hyperbole of wanting him to “prove” something to YOUR satisfaction yet you don’t have to “prove” anything you say to anyone else’s satisfaction…happens only as the dog is chasing it’s tail; round, and round, and round, and round.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2nukC2g3...

Why the Nomme de guerre, Sally?? Too much heat under Darwin1??? You were getting it from all sides when you changed to IT.... I can understand that you must have been feeling pretty frustrated that NO ONE wants to listen to your tripe, and no one likes you at all.

ROFLOLPIMPTIME!!!!
-
Yip!! Yip!!! Yip, yip!!!

"If you notice some of his past posts, he makes comments about his own comments"
.
Quote three in which I've referenced and commented on my own comments, unprompted, solely for the sake of doing it.
.
"He lives by this:"
.
Ohh, nice try. In reality, I follow this code:
.
1. I use logical reasoning and evidence to argue the facts. And if you can't, then your opinions and bias do not refute me.
2. I care enough to apply more than just my base emotions as justification for commenting. If you don't, I will likely refute you.
3. I appeal to the power of logic and fact, because nothing can refute them.
4. I love America, as well as those who would apply the philosophies of the Enlightment, as our founders did.
5. I am only as strong as my argument, and allow the evidence of a situation to guide my thinking rather than group-think or emotion, because rationality and logic are the quickest paths to honest success. Any opinion that can be dismantled by subjecting it to the rigors of logic or facts is obsolete.

Ahh, what a little coward you are, DiGriz. You're DEFINITELY not a soldier in the field. You don't even have the courage to post your insults and suggestions regarding my physical assault in english. What are you scared of?

"even with all you've got to contend with you still seem to have the time take him to task on every subject"
.
First, I've not been "taken to task." Or can you prove that? Second, "with all you've got to contend with"? What all does DiGriz contend with? Hmm? Are you in Afghanistan, too? Or could it be you've just taken the word of an anonymous poster on a local paper's website at face value? But, as with proving I've been "taken to task", please also feel free to detail what it is that DiGriz "contends" with, and prove how you know it to be so.
.
"Now that that's settled how about you go find yourself another screen name"
.
Why? This one works just fine...

"IT, you are not unlike a barky little dog that someone should kick over a fence."
.
Why would anyone kick a dog over a fence for barking? Would you kick a child for crying? Nevermind; don't answer that...
.
"If you want proof that I am over here"
.
I'm pretty sure my question has repeatedly been concerning what capacity, exactly, you "serve" in over in Afghanistan. For someone who has a access "at all times" to your own personal laptop, I question what it is you're doing. You're certainly not in the field.
.
"look at some of my past posts"
.
Which prove nothing other than you have a penchant for appeals to emotion. But, again, I'm not interested in whether or not you're in Afghanistan, but rather what it is you do there. On your own personal laptop. For hours on end.
.
"I am under no obligation to prove my military status"
.
If you even are military.
.
"You don't have a right to know"
.
I have a right to ask, and as often as I please. There's nothing naive about it.

Correct, RetiredAirForce. My typed words DO tell a completely different story than your interpretations of them.

"vatoloco: I see you've been watching Glenn Beck again."
+
"Typical of you to make a statement like that. Trying to imply that a person can't think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Using your line or reasoning, did you get your response from watching olbermann, mathews, or maddow?"

SarahB1-You are so shallow in your commentary. I have heard of Glenn Beck but I have never watched his tv show. You can't even provide worthwhile comments. Do we have to start talking about nursing shortages or nursing errors for you to have something interesting to talk about?

"Really vatoloco, you mean he was even less qualified than a major league baseball team owner turned Texas governor who couldn't even read the words printed on his teleprompter correctly? What are you, 2 years old?"

Show us don tell us you can do the job Mr. Obama. You must be related to darwin1 (AKA) inconvenienttruth. In your world, intelligence and the ability to give ok speeches is suffice to qualify someone to be president? I will judge Obama on his ability to do the job not read or speak. Many people can speak and read well but if they do not have a great track record (like Obama) of getting things done those abilities are irrelevant. You were taken by his words and presentations during his campaign. You can start removing the wool at anytime. Yes, Bush was not the most articulate President but at least he had more experience in being a Governor than Obama had in being a senator from a poverty and crime stricken city with a below average education system.

"And the dog is back chasing it's tail. I'll give you mild credit, I have never seen anyone write in more circles than you...caught up in your own minutia of what you think you wrote, while your typed words tell a complete different story."

RAF-I thought it was only me who has noticed Mr. Sally Omalley be so critical of how he thinks he writes. If you notice some of his past posts, he makes comments about his own comments. To me, this means he has to be one of the most self centered and egotistical personalities out there. He lives by this:
1. I am smarter than you are, therefore I know what's best for you.
2. I care more than you do, don't you dare say I do not.
3. I appeal to the uneducated masses because through my mesmerizing words I can make people believe me.
4. I hate America, it should be more like France and the rest of Europe
5. I am weak, not empowered enough to think for myself because I must make myself believe than intelligence (IQ) is the only path to success in life, everyone else who cannot think like me is obselete.

Sally, nå som du har lært å bruke en oversetter, oversette dette: Gå skruen deg selv med en sopelime håndtak!

Thanks TOHI!! BTW, your name is EXCELLENT. Quite frankly, I am also tired of hearing IT.

Yep, IT is Sally, IMO. The circumstantial yet compelling evidence is:
-
1. Septmember 25th, 2009, Darwin1 falls off the face of the planet, and is not heard from except for a post here or there around October 9th. How unlike him........her........IT.
2. Out of the blue, on Sept. 25th, after a hiatus of almost a year (Novemember 15th, 2008), Inconvenienttruth makes a comeback....
-
Veeeeeeewwwwwwwyyyyyy intewwwesting...........
-
Hi Sally!!

Mmmmm. If I help you, Clarice, it will be "turns with us, too. Quid pro quo. I tell you things, you tell me things. Not about this case though.....

DiGriz; You've got IT chasing his tail trying to figure out what FOB means - here's a hint Sally "Forward Operating Base". What's really got him po'd is that even with all you've got to contend with you still seem to have the time take him to task on every subject & to think all he's got to do is decide if he should have regular or decaf today. Now that that's settled how about you go find yourself another screen name - make sure its a real clever one this time will ya Sally.
***
Keep up the good work Griz.

IT, you are not unlike a barky little dog that someone should kick over a fence. What makes you think I have any compulsion whatsoever to make you happy or answer your stupid questions that also happen to be none of your business? If you want proof that I am over here then perhaps look at some of my past posts, like the one in which I mention the two COP's getting overrun and 9 Soldiers killed (actually 8, but I didn't know that) before the AP even released the story (and not breaking OPSEC). The reason I knew is because one of my roomates works at CJTF-82 JOC. Or the last guy to get killed by a rocket before that came out in any news story. I can tell you all about him... I heard the rocket and exposion that killed the poor guy, who was here from a FOB on his way home for R&R to see his wife and SIX kids. He was in his temporary room for only ONE minute before the rocket came through the roof.
-
I am under no obligation to prove my military status, work conditions, or anything else to you, because quite frankly, you are a jerk. You don't have a right to know, and for you to suggest that you do by badgering me like a little chihuahau with a corncob stuck somewhere it doesn't belong demonstrates a certain amount of naivete' on your part.
-
You'll be happy to know that I'm not having much fun posting tonight due to REALLY bad internet. I keep losing connection. Our private internet goes by satellite to Hong Kong, then Pacific cable. It's not very good at times, and we don't even know why we pay for it.
-
Google.com.hk 還提供： English

廣告服務 - Google 完全手冊 - Google.com in English
©2009 - 隱私權政策

And the dog is back chasing it's tail. I'll give you mild credit, I have never seen anyone write in more circles than you...caught up in your own minutia of what you think you wrote, while your typed words tell a complete different story.

Umm...if you "don't answer stupid questions" concerning your extremely questionable legitimacy, DiGriz, why did you...answer?
You're in Afghanistan, but you don't work 24 hours a day (really?) and...have access to your own personal laptop at all times? So, 'soldier', I'll ask again: exactly in what capacity are you supposedly "serving"?
And I know you think writing in different languages makes you look smarter but, trust me, a change in language doesn't equate to a change in substance.

"you state one thing and then completely back track from it declaring you never said it."
.
Really? I don't think so. But let's check out your "proof" of this, shall we?
.
"'Snobbery is not only to insinuate that we should feel guilty'---translation; snobbery is that we should feel guilty, but not the only reason."
.
Your "translation" (intentional disingenuous misrepresentation of my words) is incorrect. By using reading comprehension, we easily see that I've stated the act of snobbery to be the insinuation. It has nothing to do with feeling anything as a result of that insinuation. Your focus is misplaced, and you only insult your own intelligence by purposefully presenting these misinterpreatations.
.
"'Of course, I've never made any such claim.'---translation; I didn’t say what I wrote."
.
There's no logical way to interpret "I've never made any such claim" as meaning "I didn’t say what I wrote." In fact, those two statements contradict each other. Only through the distortion of the lense of bias could one possibly view such a conclusion as correct. And your bias is on full display. Too bad you've chosen to act on it by playing dumb.
.
Then you "attempt"
.
Why is the word "attempt" in quotes? Even if I failed in an attempt, it would still qualify as a factual attempt. So, unless I never actually attempted anything at all, such quotations are senseless.
.
"to take my comment of 'I can't draw a picture for you so I will do my best to explain to you (not that you will understand anyway)' and think that was snobbery? My comment was a satirical insinuation, assuming you would not grasp the point no matter how it was re-explained."
.
Yes. By insinuating your assumption that I would not grasp the point no matter how it was re-explained, you've displayed your snobbery. To 'assume' something is to take for granted as true, without requiring proof, and thus to do so in the biased-based belief of another person's lack of intelligence is an act of snobbery.

DiGriz, thank you for your lifetime of service to this country. Most of it's citizens are grateful. I knew you would understand that last one.

(Sprout) Örülök, hogy tetszett, Bimba. Beletelt IT sokáig találta ki azért, mert hülye.

Jeg mente å si at jeg ikke jobber 24 timer i døgnet

Jeg er i Afghanistan. Men jeg jobber 24 timer i døgnet, har jeg acess til i min personlig bærbar PC til alle tider, og jeg føler ikke svare på dumme spørsmål.

You really make this too easy; you state one thing and then completely back track from it declaring you never said it.

[Oct, 13 @ 01:42] “Snobbery is not only to insinuate that we should feel guilty”---translation; snobbery is that we should feel guilty, but not the only reason.

[Oct 13, @ 11:50] “Of course, I've never made any such claim.”---translation; I didn’t say what I wrote.

Then you “attempt” to take my comment of "I can't draw a picture for you so I will do my best to explain to you (not that you will understand anyway)" and think that was snobbery? My comment was a satirical insinuation, assuming you would not grasp the point no matter how it was re-explained. As it turns out I was right…imagine that.

lol, nope I never use ad hominem.

Ez poén volt griz, nem tudom kilép a nevetést.

So, not only are you unable to answer why someone who is supposedly 'serving' in Afghanistan at this very moment has been posting all day long at his leisure on the Internet, but you're going to suggest I be physically assaulted? Nice. Enjoy the thanks people unwittingly laud upon you for your so-called 'service'.

Du bør være slått i hjel med en jernbane slips.

Ingen av virksomheten, IT. Du er ikke min venn.

I should clarify that as access for personal recreation, but the question stands.

This just keeps nagging at me, but...for someone who claims to be serving in Afghanistan at this very moment, you sure have consistent and long-ranging periods of Internet access, DiGriz. Exactly what capacity are you serving in, again?

Sorry, RetiredAirForce, it's not playing a victim card to point out ad hominem; it's just an observation of a weak argument. I'm MORE than capable of refuting you and your ilk to have to resort to victimhood. If you want examples of playing the victim card, check out any one of DiGriz's posts to me starting from Oct 13, 2009 at 12:35 and onward. It's clear that logical fallacies are all you and DiGriz have to rely on. It's easy, and quick, and gives the false impression of strength, when really it's just overcompensation for a lack of willingness/ability to reason an argument based on evidence or logic. What about that makes me the victim again?

That's actually prounion, Sprout.....he IS pretty handy with railroad ties.....I like the way you think.

lol, I love it when the victim card of ad hominem is played, at least your are consistent in your victim hood. And as before you of course never use it...

Jeg vil gjerne banke hans hode borte, faktisk.

Virkelig?

Hvor er at fyren med tog veien tie, kunne han klubben IT med det for moro skyld.

Vet du hvorfor inconvenienttruth stiller seg foran vinduet når det lyner?
-
Svar: Han tror han blir tatt bilde av.
-
:) Skål!

Ingen årsak, vær så god, Mark Twain.

Thank you Ole (or Lena)!!!

Vet du hvorfor norskene alltid har en tom brusflaske i kjøleskapet?
Svar: I tilfelle det kommer noen på besøk som ikke er tørste...

"I for one am also mature enough to appreciate the Norwegian jokes"
.
I'm not sure "mature" was the word you were looking for.
.
"I know the history of (Norwegian jokes)"
.
The "history" of dumb Norwegian jokes? Do share; I'd love to learn something new.
.
"I am qualified to tell the jokes (if one needs a qualification)."
.
No one needs qualifications to do it. It's just that it weakens any argument one might have to rely on bigoted ad hominem instead of a well-reasoned argument built on evidences or logic.
.
"You are an asset on these blogs...who has the balls to stand up to some of these simpletons and to do it in a lucid way."
.
A lucid way...yes, it is pretty clear what DiGriz is getting at by using bigotry as a crutch. Almost as lucid as your calling others pigs. Lucid, indeed.

Thanks, Shopierehuh.

"I made my points, and you made yours."
.
Correct. It just happens that my points can be verified, while yours are almost entirely hype and hyperbole.
.
"To bad you can't post a poll, then we could see who the audience felt "won" the exchange"
.
That would be more convenient for you, I suppose, as the criteria would not be evidences of reality, but opinions of the majority. And nothing says "correct" like the opinions of majorities. Just look at how "correct" Nazi Germany was, or more recently, how "correct" the invasion of Iraq was. Mob rule rules!
.
"You could then have darwin1, and the various other screen names that mysteriously have the same IP address as yours"
.
Now that's just sad. You have no idea what my IP address even is, let alone anyone elses to be able to make such a claim as this.
.
Like I said, I think you keep insiting each post to be your last because it's simply far beyond your ability to debate the topics you've raised. You weren't expecting to be held accountable for pulling nonsense out of thin air, and the light of that attention is a little too glaring for your liking. Run along now, like you've promised.

"How in hell (which doesn't exist) can I call the shots??"
.
Uhh...I never even wrote that. Honestly now, you even quoted me in your post and you STILL put words in my mouth? It's like you people can't even read! Here's what was REALLY written: "you're deciding you want to call the shots in this effort you signed up for".
There is a difference between actually doing something, and WANTING to do something. Words have meanings; learn them.
.
"only someone who is anal-retentive, and thoroughly lacking a sense of humor or any Norwegians without a Svense of humor would miss the point of the Norwegian-bashing for anything other than what it is - humor to infer that my opinion is that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee are a bunch of idiots."
.
Yes, and lynchings were just family-fun events meant to express the opinion that blacks should learn their place. Bigotry = humor. Who knew? As thekid3477 pointed out, as long as you had a reason to insult the intelligence of an entire country, then I guess it's OK.

"That's right, pump him, IT"
.
"Pump him"? What does that even mean? I guess I shouldn't have pointed out that thekid3477 was precisely correct in his assessment of your hypocrisy. My bad. Pump him...seriously?
.
"That is the opinion of a malicious narcissist...You can't prove that"
.
You've still not proven any malice on my part, so that accusation's not going to fly. And yes, I can prove it. You tell me that I am "mean" and "spiteful", yet that is precisely the definition of making bigoted jokes that stereotype and degrade an entire country simply because 5 people from that country have given an award to Obama that you don't think he deserves.
.
"Public figures are fair game. Only little people like you make first-strike personal attacks"
.
By commenting on here, you make yourself public. And I don't make personal attacks. All my posts are in regards to the story, or the most egregiously false/illogical comments made in relation to the story. To attack your lack of logic is not a "personal attack", and is certainly not "first-strike", as an initial comment is required for me to take issue with it.
.
"because it makes you feel better about yourself at someone else's expense."
.
Defending the truth does make me feel better, yet it comes at no one's expense.
.
"I'm no more bigotted than you are, Sally2"
.
Who's Sally2? And I'm not the one making bigoted jokes generalizing an entire country worth of people, so you're quite a bit more bigoted.
.
"No one asked for your line by line quips"
.
And no one asked you for yours. You're just free to give them, and so am I. Like I said, some of you can't take what you give.
.
"you comment on individual sentences, taking them out of context in doing so."
.
I've never once taken anything out of context. I take individual points one at a time, thus covering an entire post in the end. Posts rarely make one single statement. They usually cover multiple aspects.
.
"It's pathetic"
.
How so?
.
"petty"
.
No more so than your comments.
.
"simple-minded"
.
How so?
.
"and biased"
.
How so?
.
"Too bad you are not a journalist. You'd make a good one."
.
Thank you.
.
"And then there are narcissists like you"
.
I hardly mention myself.
.
"who are all too ready to pass judgement on individual people's comments to soothe your inadaquacies and fear."
.
Inadequacies and fear? Is that why you are all too ready to pass judgment on entire nations? Again, your inability to see your hypocrisy is troubling.
.
"I'm sure anyone can look through all your comments, and not find one that isn't bashing someone in some way."
.
And I'm sure you'd be wrong about that.
.
"That speaks volumes about your real intent"
.
Refuting those who comment in opposition to logic/truth? Because I've been pretty clear on my intent.
.
"Not good at making friends, are you?"
.
Not with people who can't reason a valid argument. I don't consider that a loss.

I'm not sure why DiGriz is responding for RetiredAirForce, but at least it was done with a handling of fallacious appeals to ridicule and ad hominem that rivals that of RetiredAirForce's.

.
"No matter what anyone says, right or wrong, the only purpose IT has here is to tear it apart for IT's own amusement, and to satisfy IT's narcissism."

.
Incorrect. I focus on posts that are provably wrong. If someone is correct, the most I offer them is a little encouragement. If they're right, they don't need much more attention.

DiGriz, Thanks for your service. I know what your point is about the wars, I agree. I for one am also mature enough to appreciate the Norwegian jokes, I know the history of them and one of my grandmothers was pure Nowegian. I am qualified to tell the jokes (if one needs a qualification). It fits so well with the imbeciles on the NPP Committee.

You are an asset on these blogs, a conservative or at least the opposite of a liberal who has the balls to stand up to some of these simpletons and to do it in a lucid way.

I learned a long time ago that there is not much future in arguing with a liberal or a lefty it is akin to arguing with a pig, the pig doesn't get it and it annoys us. Oh well, someone has to do it though.

as long as you had a reason to insult the intelligence of an entire counry i guess its ok.

"And now you're deciding you want to call the shots in this effort you signed up for, because it's been going on longer than you'd like? I guess someone shouldn't have signed that dotted line if they weren't ready to make the sacrifices."
-
How in hell (which doesn't exist) can I call the shots?? If you think that me saying what I did is calling the shots, you need professional help and a straightjacket!! The only thing I did was give an opinion, that you probably agree with, but for the sake of bashing me in your comments, you feel a need to twist 180 degrees out of your phase in order to keep the bash-fest going. It's all pretty transparent. I'm done with this thread too.
-
And BTW, only someone who is anal-retentive, and thoroughly lacking a sense of humor or any Norwegians without a Svense of humor would miss the point of the Norwegian-bashing for anything other than what it is - humor to infer that my opinion is that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee are a bunch of idiots. So GFY, IT.

I'm voting for Pedro.

i'll vote. IT has it;)

pump him?? you did see that i gave you props for your comment...yes?? i was just pointing out the enormous hypocrisy of you being called mean and spiteful, when in the same thread you insult the intelligence of an entire country. i dont always agree w your posts griz, but i can tell yer no slouch(dont worry judge, you're a tremendous slouch:). you know what you post about, and i enjoy the humor you use to convey your thoughts...but i think IT is asking more than relevant questions to others' posts, but i dont see any relevant answers forthcoming. good work you malicous narcissist IT:)

incon:
Nah; I don't need to "save face". I made my points, and you made yours. The 3 or 4 people left reading this thread, which has deviated far off the topic, can decide. To bad you can't post a poll, then we could see who the audience felt "won" the exchange, since you seem to have so much confidence in your debating skills. You could then have darwin1, and the various other screen names that mysteriously have the same IP address as yours, all vote!
.
That really is my last comment on this thread.
Good day

"Precisely, thekid3477.
-
That's right, pump him, IT....
-
"DiGriz is just another example of the 'do as I say, not as I do' poster who can't take the heat that they give."
-
That is the opinion of a malicious narcissist, and only opinion. You can't prove that, like you would tell others to do, hypocrite.
-
"They love to critique public figures in mean and spiteful ways, and some like DiGriz are even blatanly bigoted."
-
Public figures are fair game. Only little people like you make first-strike personal attacks because it makes you feel better about yourself at someone else's expense. I'm no more bigotted than you are, Sally2
-
"but heaven forbid anyone should critique the critiquers."
-
It's here for all to see. No one asked for your line by line quips (just like I'm doing to you now). You don't critique the scope or context of an entire comment, you comment on individual sentences, taking them out of context in doing so. It's pathetic, petty, simple-minded, and biased. Too bad you are not a journalist. You'd make a good one.
-
"There's quite a few posters on here who really need to get out of the kitchen."
-
And then there are narcissists like you, who are all too ready to pass judgement on individual people's comments to soothe your inadaquacies and fear. I'm sure anyone can look through all your comments, and not find one that isn't bashing someone in some way. That speaks volumes about your real intent. Not good at making friends, are you?

Let's just all face it. No matter what anyone says, right or wrong, the only purpose IT has here is to tear it apart for IT's own amusement, and to satisfy IT's narcissism.

"No, it doesn't really. Of course, I've never made any such claim."
-
No, your only claim to fame is picking apart people's comments bit by bit in a very shallow way.
-
"What I did write was:"
-
"Ad hominem," over and over and over and over in most of your comments, Also, what you did write demonstrates condescention, and your ongoing narcissistic behavior.
-
"Oh, you mean like: "I can't draw a picture for you so I will do my best to explain to you (not that you will understand anyway)"?"
-
At least you don't hide the fact that you hate everyone equally
-
"But at least you were right"
-
It's impossible for you to tell someone that they are right, what are you talking about?
-
"you unwittingly missed your mark."
-
Oh, that's better. The insult was coming.

"The Iran debate deviates from the topic of this blog which was obama winning a Nobel peace prize."

.
Ok...and? To refresh your memory: "Just wait till Iran has a nuke in the next year or so. Once they get it, I assure you it will be launched. I wonder then if the egg heads from all these great institutions will reconsider who they nominated once a massive world war breaks out?" - kiowamohican, October 12 at 2:02 a.m.

.
"You can try and fool yourself into believing that the various reports of them having secret nuclear facilities"

.
Why would I not believe the evidence of Iran's previously hidden facility that is under construction?

.
"and only being a year away from enriched weapons grade material"

.
The claim is the result of misinterpretations on the part of some news organizations. Care to guess where their interpretation of a year time frame (which has placed you under the impression) derived from? I'll give you a hint: it satarts with the letter 'I'.

.
"You choose to believe various governmnet propaganda, and these paper tiger world organizations."

.
What's this even based off of? Care to quote precisely where I've exhibited my choice to believe various governmnet propaganda?

.
"That's fine, after all we have had such great intel over the years (have we found those WMD's in Iraq yet?)"

.
Most of the intel was good on Iraq (UN/IAEA inspections prior to the invasion made it clear that Iraq had no WMDs). The people misrepresenting or falsifying the intel, on the other hand, were not so good.

.
"Iran will play these idiot organizations like the fools they are"

.
You sure seem confident of the brilliant Iran.

.
"and have a nuclear weapon in the very near future"

.
I'm still waiting on you to tell me how it is that you actually know this.

.
"They will gladly talk to Obama, and the various appeasement crowd, of how they are cooperating, all the while laughing as they run out the clock on enriching Uranium to weapons grade."

.
What? This doesn't even make sense. Iran is going to "run out the clock on enriching uranium"? THEY'RE UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE! WHAT CLOCK?

.
"But let them get it, what's the big deal, right?"

.
Who said it's no big deal if Iran had a nuke? Where are you pulling any of this from?

.
"Not like Ahmadinejad has ever said: 'death to all of Israel'."

.
Probably why the international community has such a close eye on Iran, huh?

.
"This is my last entry on this topic. Not because I don't enjoy the debate, but it's simply far off the topic."

.
I think it's really because it's simply far beyond your ability to debate. I have no problem with you wanting to save face, though.

"Snobbery has nothing to do with if you should or should not feel guilty..."

.
No, it doesn't really. Of course, I've never made any such claim. What I did write was:
"Snobbery is not only to insinuate that we should feel guilty for someone else's voluntary choices" (here we see that the act of snobbery was the insinuation), "but to also call someone who has made it clear that those who serve in the military are appreciated an "elitist" for refusing to accept that undeserved guilt trip." (here we see that the act of snobbery was the "elitist" ad hominem)

.
"Snobbery, in regards to my comment is based on those that attempt a projection of aloofness in words and retorts"

.
Oh, you mean like: "I can't draw a picture for you so I will do my best to explain to you (not that you will understand anyway)"?
But at least you were right; you unwittingly missed your mark.

"i will say tho that your norwegian jokes are as mean and spiteful to the norwegians as any thing directed at you on this thread."

.
Precisely, thekid3477. DiGriz is just another example of the 'do as I say, not as I do' poster who can't take the heat that they give. They love to critique public figures in mean and spiteful ways, and some like DiGriz are even blatanly bigoted, but heaven forbid anyone should critique the critiquers.

There's quite a few posters on here who really need to get out of the kitchen.

"Your accusation that I am trying to instill a sense of guilt in anyone in relation to my service, which was also very condescending in that you infer that I don't know what my own situation is."

.
My accusation was correct. If you found it to be mean or spiteful, you'll have to take it up with truth.
Or did you not write that, "Until (we stop electing millionaires and the influential), enjoy your life if you can, and rest comfortably in your bed at night knowing that the people you elect send people like me to occupy distant lands..."? Because, unless you didn't write that (and please correct me if you didn't), then that quote would be the EXACT definition of trying to "instill a sense of guilt in anyone in relation to (your) service." And that you have done so means that it’s you who’s given the impression that you don't know your own situation. I merely observed that you did.
I suggest you take your own advice: "Say it correctly and lay the blame where it belongs." If you're in Afghanistan, then that’s your own fault. Don't guilt people for resting comfortably or voting freely just because you're in Afghanistan due to your own decisions.

.
"It was malicious, and nothing else."

.
No malice was involved; again, the truth just hurts.

.
"I don't recall any mandate to stay in Afghanistan for the next 20 years trying to convert an entire religion-based culture."

.
You should've familiarized yourself a little better with the Bush Doctrine.

.
"If that's the game plan, let's pack up our toys and leave now, because... we won't do anything here other than waste a lot of lives and money in a hopeless effort, and kill a lot of people that are... trying to force the foreign power occupying their country to leave."

.
So, how does that game plan differ from the game plan of "exacting retribution for 9/11"? I'm pretty sure that, in either plan, a lot of money and lives are wasted in a hopeless effort, and a lot of people are killed trying to force the foreign power occupying their country to leave. Oh, wait, I forgot that there was a "mandate" for the retribution, so that makes it OK. And under that original mandate, we were to "convert an entire religion-based culture", aka The War on Terror, by tracking down bin Laden and al Qaeda and attacking them AND any nation/organization that would harbor them, aka Islamic jihadists. The War on Terror… such a wonderfully generalized blanket term, huh? You gotta give Bush credit; he definitely took advantage of 9/11 to find a loophole that could rationalize the invasion and occupation of any number of Middle Eastern nations that've shown anti-U.S. sentiment. And now you're deciding you want to call the shots in this effort you signed up for, because it's been going on longer than you'd like? I guess someone shouldn't have signed that dotted line if they weren't ready to make the sacrifices.
Again, pity and appreciation are two different things, and you only deserve one.

I don't understand why Obama won. Was the Beer Summit really THAT big a deal?

;)

good post griz. i will say tho that your norwegian jokes are as mean and spiteful to the norwegians as any thing directed at you on this thread. if those jokes were about people from africa would they still be up here??

I can't draw a picture for you so I will do my best to explain to you (not that you will understand anyway).

Snobbery has nothing to do with if you should or should not feel guilty...that is feeling a person has based on there own self worth. If you think you should feel guilty over it, you might have other problems.

Snobbery, in regards to my comment is based on those that attempt a projection of aloofness in words and retorts; and unwittingly in most case miss the mark.

"What did I say that was mean and spiteful, DiGriz?"
-
Your accusation that I am trying to instill a sense of guilt in anyone in relation to my service, which was also very condescending in that you infer that I don't know what my own situation is. It was malicious, and nothing else. I know full well that I volunteered for this, and what the consequences might be.
-
Nevertheless, understanding that, I am still of the opinion, as a U.S. Citizen, that it's not the job of the American people or military to attempt to create countries in our own image wherever we find them. As I've said before, we came over here to exact retribution for 9/11 and did that. There was a mandate from the people to do that, and to get Bin Hidin, which we failed to do. I don't recall any mandate to stay in Afghanistan for the next 20 years trying to convert an entire religion-based culture. If that's the game plan, let's pack up our toys and leave now, because two thousand years of history indicate that we won't do anything here other than waste a lot of lives and money in a hopeless effort, and kill a lot of people that are for the most part, just trying to force the foreign power occupying their country to leave, like they did to the Russians. The only outside influence that ever had a lasting effect on these people other than to unite them against a foe was the islamic conquest around 650 AD. Which is why we are here......generally speaking. Oh, and bullets. Can't leave them out as a form of influence. They have a very lasting effect, too.

Callitaslseeit: This joke was mentioned a few times already.

No Kleej, I heard Obama watched a college football game Saturday and won the Heisman Trophy.

Too bad the Nobel commission didn't have a "Lies Prize". Then Bush would have won hands down, and probably would have won every year.

The big zerO!

Talk about a triple crown winner! First, Obama's elected the U.S.'s first African American president, second; he takes over as head honcho of General Motors and now....the Nobel Peace Prize! What's next?? Taking over the world?! (did I say that?)

incon:
The Iran debate deviates from the topic of this blog which was obama winning a Nobel peace prize.
.
You can try and fool yourself into believing that the various reports (which have been all over international news the past few months) of them having secret nuclear facilities, and only being a year away from enriched weapons grade material, are all erroneous, or put out by people with an agenda. You choose to believe various governmnet propaganda, and these paper tiger world organizations. That's fine, after all we have had such great intel over the years (have we found those WMD's in Iraq yet?). Iran will play these idiot organizations like the fools they are, and have a nuclear weapon in the very near future. They will gladly talk to Obama, and the various appeasement crowd, of how they are cooperating, all the while laughing as they run out the clock on enriching Uranium to weapons grade. But let them get it, what's the big deal, right? Not like Ahmadinejad has ever said: "death to all of Israel".
.
This is my last entry on this topic. Not because I don't enjoy the debate, but it's simply far off the topic.
Have a nice day

"Iran is within a year of having nuclear bomb. It's not any special intel, or clearance I have. Just reports from various world news sources who cover it."

.
Hmmm... now, how do you suppose it is that we/the press are able to know such a thing? You think about that and get back to me, k?

.
"If you don't think Iran will use it once the obtain it"

.
Who said anyone was going to allow Iran to obtain one?

.
Similar to what you have now with your precious IAEA

.
Haha, MY precious IAEA? Would that be the same IAEA that is the very reason you're under the impression Iran can make a nuclear bomb in a year's time? The same IAEA which has caused the slowing of Iran's enrichment program and prevents Iran from creating weapons on a whim due to constant surveillance and regular inspections? Curse them and their monitoring! SO useless!

.
"all these countries that will do a lot of talking, but nothing to stop Iran."

.
What exactly has been done to give you the impression that "all these countries" will do nothing if Iran develops a nuke? Please tell me you've based your opinion off of more than a 60 year old defunct international organization...

What did I say that was mean and spiteful, DiGriz?

No, RetiredAirForce. Snobbery is not only to insinuate that we should feel guilty for someone else's voluntary choices, but to also call someone who has made it clear that those who serve in the military are appreciated an "elitist" for refusing to accept that undeserved guilt trip. We're all responsible for our choices and DiGriz is no different. No civilian has any reason to ever feel guilty for the voluntary enlistment of a soldier who knows full well ahead of time the realities of that commitment. Appreciation and pity are two entirely different things. DiGriz and all other service members only deserve one of those, until the day the draft is reinstated. I know how you service members love your soapbox, and I don't entirely blame you in light of all the pomp and circumstance that has come to overshadow the fact that the military is in service to civilians, but please spare me the holier than thou routine. You're not above the truth because you put on a uniform and carry a firearm, though those things may make you feel that way.

Inconvenient, were you BORN a mean, spiteful person, or did you have to work on it?

If Obama had any class, or political savvy, he would declined the award, and give it to the US troops who are currently serving in Afghanistan, and Iraq. It's DrGriz, and the millions of Americans who have, and are serving this country that have secured the peace we enjoy in this country for so many years. And yes, the award can be given to a group, or organization, in general; and not a specific person. I believe it was in 1999 that it was given to the doctors without boarders. I believe it was 76 or 77 that it was given to Amnesty International. Giving it to Obama has just made the whole prize a walking joke. Even many scholars on the left have been highly critical of it, and it's making the comedy shows all stay in business.

Yes DiGriz how dare you speak. Don't you realize anything you have to say is likely to spark disgruntlement and indignation by those who have so little disregard for someone with your point of view or experience?

I suggest you find some someone to assist in filtering your comments before posting; lest the elitist in attendance revolt by way of more snobbery.

"rest comfortably in your bed at night knowing that the people you elect send people like me to occupy distant lands..."

.
Um... you enlisted knowing full well you could be sent to occupy distant lands, DiGriz. It was your voluntary choice. So, while it's appreciated, don't try and guilt us over it.

DiGriz
Thank you for your service.
I will pray for you to return safely ASAP.
Thank You

And one more thing, Panama. The reason our political system is so screwed up is because we elect people to office like Bush 43, Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and perhaps Obama. When we stop electing millionaires and the influential, maybe we'll get it right again and have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Until then, enjoy your life if you can, and rest comfortably in your bed at night knowing that the people you elect send people like me to occupy distant lands for no reason that is tangible or attainable unless we intend to kill everyone here.
-
In my opinion, President Obama did nothing substantial enough to merit the award yet other than give a majority of Americans Obamagasms because he was elected, and the rest of the world a collective sigh of relief that Bush was gone and maybe Americans would stop running around the world and shooting it up as they go. I hope some day he does something to earn it, but until then, my opinion is that he did not, and hopefully one can respect my opinion and leave it at that, rather than attack me personally while they fall all over themselves defending what Obama may or may not do in the future.

incon:
You should read some of the international news better. Iran is within a year of having nuclear bomb. It's not any special intel, or clearance I have. Just reports from various world news sources who cover it. If you don't think Iran will use it once the obtain it, and that will result in a major world war, God bless ya. My point about the league Of Nations was that the World community did nothing as Germany rebuilt its military in defiance of the sanctions put upon them after loosing WWI. It was nothing more then a fancy debate club that did a lot of talking, but never did anything of substance. Similar to what you have now with your precious IAEA, and all these countries that will do a lot of talking, but nothing to stop Iran. The exception to that may, of course, be Israel.

Panama: You know, I hope you realize that Bush didn't physically let Bin Laden go. You say that Bush had him cornered. No, that's not true. The U.S. military had him cornered, maybe. So put the blame where it belongs if you want to say that "Bush let Bin Laden go." Say it correctly and lay the blame where it belongs. The U.S. Military let Bin Laden get away, with help from the Afghans, not Bush. Bush wasn't looking for him, we were. If you want to say someone failed, blame us, your Armed Services, because we are the ones on the ground, in the air, and on the sea looking for Bin Laden. Don't blame a guy sitting behind a desk in D.C., and that includes Clinton. I don't fault him for not getting Bin Laden when he had a chance. How was Clinton supposed to know what was going to happen? Just be honest. And don't point your finger at me like I'm "the conservative movement." I'm conservative, for sure, but I'm also not stupid. I'm no fan of our involvement in either Afghanistan (where I am) or Iraq. We don't belong in either place anymore. Maybe some day the dimwits will wake up and get us out of here. This serves no real purpose. You can look up old posts of mine and see that clearly has been my sentiment.

AP - Washington D.C.
Inside sources revealed tonight that President Barack Obama will be awarded the Grammy for Best New Artist for his rendition of "Happy Birthday To You" as sung to entertainer Marc Anthony on September 21st at the Hispanic Caucus Institute's Awards Gala. The award will be presented at the upcomming Grammy Awards Show. Grammy spokesman Ron Roeker is quoted as saying that no other nominees for the award are necessary because "Obama just spanked it!! It's a gimme!!" MTV has also reportededly requested the President to sing the song again as their headline performance for their annual televised awards show. In addition to speaking at the CHCI evevt, President Obama was awarded Hispanic status just for showing up.

Yeah, DiGriz, that picture says it all. The individuals selected by the Norwegian Parliament to choose the winner of the prize recognized the restorative initiatives Obama emphasized during his campaign resonated with American voters. Not only were they (Europe as a whole) pleased to see Mr. Bush leave office, but that the majority of American people rejected his views on foreign policies. Obama represented a new direction for America. One that rejected human rights abuses and advanced diplomacy including a renewed relationship with our allies. The conservatives don't have anything to offer but regressive policies designed to keep us isolated from the rest of the world. As Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" showed, we can't do it alone. We need our allies in the fight against terrorism.
Vatoloco claims, "The Clinton administration was responsible for letting Al Qaida buildup. They had Osama Bin Laden cornered at one point and decided to keep their distance."
While that is true, few realized the scope of violence Bin Laden and Al Qaida were capable of until 9/11. After we realized how malicious the terrorists were, George W should have been relentless in his efforts to find Bin Laden. He too had Bin Laden cornered only to let him go so he could invade Iraq instead, where there was NO Al Qaida OR Bin Laden. Face it, W. failed in his duty. He had 8 years to find Bin Laden and to eliminate Al Qaida but all he did was overrun a defenseless country, alienating our allies in the process, and allow Al Qaida to proliferate in Pakastan and Iraq. Then he leaves his mess for Obama to clean up.

To really get an idea of how pathetic the conservative movement is just read their negative comments, not only on this report but ANY story concerning Obama. He could risk his life rescuing a family from their burning home but the conservatives would blame him for allowing the house to burn down. If there is no real affront to their ideaolgy, as in Obama winning the Nobel Prize, then they make something up. They "bobble" their heads at the latest conspiracies "uncovered" by Rush, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and other faux news reporters from Fox. What tops it off though is not only do their comments make them more inane and marginal than the person they criticize, Obama, but they'll continue to gripe even while benefiting from Obama's policies.

BREAKING NEWS: This just in...!!! Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game...!!

http://gazettextra.com/photos/2009/oct/1...

"Or could they actually be smart enough to wait until he loses the Olympics"

.
Obama was in the Olympics? What event(s)?

.
"polls are down"

.
Polls are steady, actually, in the mid-50's, as opposed to the minor dip into the high 40's/low 50's a month ago.

.
"healthcare is a mess"

.
Correct. Luckily, we have a president who is finally willing to work for reform, and recent progress in Congress points to a bill being signed by early next year, at the latest.

.
"economy in ruins"

.
The economy was in ruins months ago, but has begun to gradually improve, with unemployment being the only major concern. Almost all other indicators are positive, and we're in a better position than we would have been had we allowed the collapse to unfold on its own without intervening.

.
"debt soaring"

.
That hasn't been new news for many decades.

.
"losing Afgan war"

.
Which isn't surprising given that, for the past five years, resources and attention have been focused on our faulty invasion of Iraq. Negligence will have that kind of a negative impact. Though I'm curious as to what you would constitute a 'victory' in Afghanistan to be? We're certainly not there concerning our original rationale (bin Laden, al Qaeda) as we're almost entirely focused on the Taliban, a group which has not actively attacked the U.S., has stated it's only interest is Afghanistan, and which doesn't have the capabilities even if that weren't true. Oh, and that ruined economy you mentioned? Partly the result of our continued attempts to use a hammer to exterminate a colony of ants. So do feel free to lay out your plan for 'success' in Afghanistan. I have an eerie suspicion that it's going to sound remarkably like our plan to spend a few trillion dollars to play World Police and establish a democracy for another country (Iraq) whose civilians largely want us to go home. But we wouldn't want to 'lose' at doing that, would we?

Ezoner: Yes, quite right. I'd actually already touched on the lack of abstract reasoning by Norwegians, though the only person who could probably read it is "IT" since the joke is in Norwegian....
-
"Skal jeg dele pizzaen i fire eller åtte stykker", spurte servitøren.
-
"Bare i fire takk", svarte norsken. "Jeg tror ikke jeg orker åtte."
-
In English:
"Would you like the pizza cut into four pieces, or eight, asked the server?"
-
"Just four, thanks," answered the Norwegian. "I don't think I can eat eight."

inconvenienttruth, you don't need NSA clearance when you have access to Fox News.

How many Norwegian Nobel Peace Price Committee members does it take to screw in a lightbulb??
-
Two. One to hold it, the other to get drunk to the point that the room spins.

"This will be very similar to when Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize. The world was patting him on the back for his great work in forming the League of nations, all the while Germany was laughing, and building a war machine."

.
Soooo... Germany should've been patted on the back, instead, for opposing the good-intentioned work of men seeking unity and diplomacy? Remind me: who lost WWII? It's was the U.S., right? Because of Wilson's establishing the LoN, if I remember correctly. Why can't we learn from history already and take a cue from pre-WWII Germany and just build our own war machine to oppose the international community? Good guys never prevail...

.
"Just wait till Iran has a nuke in the next year or so. Once they get it, I assure you it will be launched."

.
Hahaha really? You "assure" us? What's your NSA clearance level, friend? What was discussed in this morning's national security briefing, oh Insider of foreign affairs intelligence? But what am I saying? I bet you're right. I bet that the U.S., Israel, Britain, France, Germany, China, etc. are totally ignoring Iran and have no plans to monitor their sites and actions in-country, or their cooperation with future IAEA inspections, or their willingness during the Oct 19th Vienna talks.

.
"a massive world war breaks out"? Woo, your fear-mongering sure appears appetizing, but it's a little too hyperbolic for my tastes, thanks.

This really doesn't do much to detract from all the Norwegian jokes. But obviously it took them 9 months to review the nominations or to count them. 1.......2..... Einy, Meeny, Miny, moe......

Or could they actually be smart enough to wait until he loses the Olympics , polls are down, healthcare is a mess, economy in ruins, debt soaring, losing Afgan war...... Hmmmmm yep he wins....

One could almost take that personal attack seriously if they didn't consider the source, Panama.... :)

The Nobel Peace prize is a big joke. It's like everything the left puts out. Pure symbolism over substance. This will be very similar to when Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize. The world was patting him on the back for his great work in forming the League of nations, all the while Germany was laughing, and building a war machine.
.
Just wait till Iran has a nuke in the next year or so. Once they get it, I assure you it will be launched. I wonder then if the egg heads from all these great institutions will reconsider who they nominated once a massive world war breaks out?...Of course not, it will be blamed on Bush, and Israel.

"Not even close, Obama has to be one of the most unqualified candidates I have ever seen."
Really vatoloco, you mean he was even less qualified than a major league baseball team owner turned Texas governor who couldn't even read the words printed on his teleprompter correctly? What are you, 2 years old?

"Somehow the five judges thought Obama fit the criteria left by Nobel in his will."
Wow, RAF you are the master of deduction!!

Hey DiGriz, I think its great how you can take personal experiences, you know things that have happened to you, and turn them into jokes about others. Especially that one about the toilet seat. Hope your head is feeling better!

It is rumored that President Obama is a candidate for a Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game on two occasions. This could be just a rumor, it could be true. We will keep an eye on this story.

What a joke. Enough said...

AP - OSLO October 12, 2009
The Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee was knocked unconcious while drinking water earlier today. Witnesses at the scene said that the Chairman was knocked unconcious when the toilet seat somehow fell and hit him in the back of the head. Two men also in the bathroom at that time were able to pull his head out of the toilet before he drowned. He was treated for the minor injury at a local hospital and released.

Q: How do you get the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee to laugh at a joke on New Year's Eve??
A: Tell him a joke on Christmas Eve.

"There are 'Bushzombies' too, IT."

.
Regardless of whether or not there are, how exactly does that negate your use of partisan ad hominem?

.
"And as far as what you think Obama has done, which includes things that have not yet come to be"

.
Which is more than acceptable under the criteria of the award.

.
"I'll just treat it the way you treat everyone else, and say that it's nice that you have your own opinion, it's just too bad you can't substantiate it with real facts."

.
Except that the newly aggressive anti-nuclear proliferation goals; the work to close Guantanamo; the prohibition of waterboarding as torture; the support and continued implementation of Iraq withdrawl; the outreach to a skeptical Islamic world and the repair of our international standing; the multilateral and tempered approach to Iran's deception; promising to end DADT and standing openly with the LGBT community; finally achieving health care reform; and generally inspiring and capturing the attention of the world, are all factual occurrences which I will now substantiate:

.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washin... , http://www.star-telegram.com/279/story/1...

.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/pol...

.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory...

.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory...

.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...

.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33025470/ns/...

.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/10/o...

.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091008/pl_n... , http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...

.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story... , http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/id... , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_e... , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUqSCIS-B...

.
"I am, in fact, of the opinion that you are darwin1"

.
Should I care?

.
"You've been weighed, measured, and found lacking in that respect."

.
By you? Hahaha. K.

.
"The point is, you don't really make any statements, do you?"

.
Sure I do. Oh, look! I just made one! And another! And another! And another! And...

.
"I'm done encouraging this exchange between you and I"

.
I'd quit if I were you, too.

.
"And I bet your grandparents were Norwegians"

.
And your illogical, vicarious attacks through stereotypes and generalizations continue to speak volumes about you.

"Skal jeg dele pizzaen i fire eller åtte stykker", spurte servitøren.
-
"Bare i fire takk", svarte norsken. "Jeg tror ikke jeg orker åtte."

Two Nobel Peace Prize Committee members were at the U.N. and wanted to measure how tall the flagpole was for the Norwegian flag, but they didn’t know how to do it, so they asked a passing U.N. Security Guard, who said: “The easiest way is to cut down the flagpole and measure it afterwards.” When the Security Guard had left, one of the Norwegians said aside to the other: “What an idiot! It’s not the length we want to measure. It’s the height..!”

There are "Bushzombies" too, IT. And as far as what you think Obama has done, which includes things that have not yet come to be, I'll just treat it the way you treat everyone else, and say that it's nice that you have your own opinion, it's just too bad you can't substantiate it with real facts.
-
I am, in fact, of the opinion that you are darwin1 going under the Nomme de guerre of "inconvenienttruth." You talk, argue, and automatically gainsay anything anyone else says just like Sally does. Same psychology, too. You like telling people, as does any narcissist, that you think you are more intelligent than they are, by attempting to make your arguments look like defense and nitpicking spelling and grammar errors, etc. You've been weighed, measured, and found lacking in that respect. The point is, you don't really make any statements, do you? You merely pick at in piecemeal fashion what other people write, and never make a substantive comment on your own. I'm done encouraging this exchange between you and I, which is no better than the Monty Python "argument" skit....
-
Palin: "Hello, is this the right room for an argument?"
-
Cleese: "I told you once....."
-
Palin: "No you havn't."
-
Cleese: "Yes I have...."
-
-
And I bet your grandparents were Norwegians.....

If the committee declared him the most deserving, using the criteria laid out in Nobel's will, it is safe to assume the other 204 did even less to earn it, per the established criteria.

To bad the official unveiling of the other 204 is kept secret by the committee for 50 years

"Sorry, but I'm not being partisan though you'd like me to be."

.
Followed later by

.
"Read below - Obamazombie..."

.
Hmm. That's an interesting contrast. I think you're being precisely as partisan as I believed, though hardly "would like", you to be.

"A better choice would have been one of the French EU members who brokered the 6-point cessation of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine last year over S.O."

.
I believe that newly aggressive anti-nuclear proliferation goals; the work to close Guantanamo; the prohibtion of waterboarding as torture; the support and continued implementation of Iraq withdrawl; the outreach to a skeptical Islamic world and the repair of our internartional standing; the multilateral and tempered approach to Iran's deception; promising to end DADT and standing openly with the LGBT community; finally achieving health care reform; and generally inspiring and capturing the attention of the world, outweighs the French-negotiated cessation of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine.

Read below - Obamazombie...

"Inconvenient...are you daft??"

.
As I recall, I'm not the one making wild, unsubstantiated claims. So, no.

.
"The whole point of mentioning Bush..."

.
Which has nothing to do with the validity of the choice of Obama, given the criteria.

.
"I just don't think getting back at a former president of the United States is a good reason to give the NPP to someone who did nothing more than get elected."

.
Except for this to be true, you'd need to ignore that Obama was bestowed the award for doing the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses.

.
"It waters down the award to the point where it means nothing"

.
Ah, so you ARE someone who knows and cares a great deal about the Nobel Peace Prize! Again, as such, who do you feel SHOULD HAVE been awarded, and why? If you feel Obama unworthy, and you're not being partisan, then you must have a better choice in mind, correct? After all, your true consider is the reputation and merit of the award.

"Nah. I think that the reason he was awarded, DiGriz, was for having done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses."
-
And just when did he do that? A better choice would have been one of the French EU members who brokered the 6-point cessation of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine last year over S.O.....

Inconvenient........are you daft?? The whole point of mentioning Bush is that he's about as likely a character to win the Nobel Peace Prize as Lucretia Borgia would have been....
-
Sorry, but I'm not being partisan though you'd like me to be. I just don't think getting back at a former president of the United States is a good reason to give the NPP to someone who did nothing more than get elected. It's no different to me than how the Army Reserves handles giving out awards.....like giving Army Commendation Medals out for just completing their annual two week obligation by standing around and picking up cigarette butts. It waters down the award to the point where it means nothing.....

"he didn't deserve it any more than G.W. Bush, Orlando Bloom, or Osama Bin Laden would have."

.
How so? I mean, that certainly is an impressive unsubstantiated claim you have there, and I'm sure it took you all of 5 seconds to think up and type, but it'd certainly help your pathetic claim if you could provide evidence to support it. Let's start with G.W. Bush: what year did he do the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses? And what specifically did he do?
.
We'll move on to Bloom and binLaden next.

"Undoubtably, one of the reasons was his success at a peaceful solution to the war here in Afghanistan, where I am now sitting, working in support of a Company that supplies the bombs and other munitions that indiscriminately and peacefully kill anything that gets in their way..."

.
Nah. I think that the reason he was awarded, DiGriz, was for having done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses.

Inconvenient............he didn't deserve it any more than G.W. Bush, Orlando Bloom, or Osama Bin Laden would have.

"Somehow the five judges thought Obama fit the criteria left by Nobel in his will."

.
If you disagree, feel free to detail how Obama does not fit the criteria, RetiredAirForce.

"Somehow the five judges thought Obama fit the criteria left by Nobel in his will."
-
Undoubtably, one of the reasons was his success at a peaceful solution to the war here in Afghanistan, where I am now sitting, working in support of a Company that supplies the bombs and other munitions that indiscriminately and peacefully kill anything that gets in their way.......

You can apparently look up past winners, DiGriz, but I'm not sure if you believe that displays that you have a logical grasp on this situation. I hope not, because it doesn't.

.
According to nobelprize.org, the Peace Prize has nothing to do with "achievement" per se, but is awarded to the nominee "who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind", and has worked for "fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Does Obama fit that description? Absolutely. Bestowing the award is simply the Committee's way of saying "we support your goals, whether achieved or in-progress, so here is some international prestige to put a little wind in your efforts' sails."

.
That’s exactly why Obama recognized that "this prize reflects the kind of world that (past Laureates) and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century." If your panties are honestly in a bunch over that sentiment, then you really need to do some serious reassessing of your priorities.

.
Or, again, am I mistaken that you oppose this on petty partisan grounds, and are instead truly only concerned of the merits of the award? Tell me, as someone who knows and cares a great deal about the Nobel Peace Prize, who do you feel SHOULD HAVE been awarded, and why? If you feel Obama unworthy, you must have a better choice in mind, correct?

.
Or would that distract too much from your vicarious Obama bashing through 'dumb Norwegian' jokes? We all know how well those display your logical grasp of this situation, after all...

What is the criteria for the prize?

From the Nobel web site ( http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace...... )

"When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." The prize was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting.""

Somehow the five judges thought Obama fit the criteria left by Nobel in his will.

BTW, inconvenient........ I'd feel the same way if they had given it to say....... Michael Jackson....Although the dear departed Michael might have actually deserved consideration. We are the world.....we are the children....

Grasp of Situation - A few past winners =
-
Teddy Roosevelt -- for negoitating the end of the Russo-Japanese War.
-
Woodrow Wilson -- for setting up the League of Nations and ending WWI.
-
Jimmy Carter - solved the Israeli/Palestinian conflict - remember? What??? Ok, well, he tried... Actually, according to the Washington Post, October 12, 2002, "The Norwegian Nobel Committee yesterday awarded the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize to former President Jimmy Carter, a move the committee's chairman said reflects "criticism of the position" the Bush administration has taken in calling for possible military strikes against Iraq." - Wow, good reason........"So, Jimmy, how's it feel to be used by a bunch of mentally deficient Norwegians who just want to make a point???"
-
Obama has apparently won because 1. He's not G.W. 2. Bush 43 didn't care enough after the committee's first attempt to make him feel just awful.....and 3. For ending American dominence in the world.
-
The award of the prize used to be prestigious.

"I just think Norwegians are stupid."

Obviously.
And the reason you have animosity for Norwegians, declaring that they're stupid? Because a Norwegian committee bestowed an award on a president who you don't support. Thus, you are vicariously showing animosity to Obama through 'dumb Norwegian' jokes. Truly speaks volumes of you and your lack of a logical grasp on this situation.

Yes, indeed; the vicarious Obama bashing through use of 'dumb Norwegian' jokes has been "well done" by Shopierehuh, and you DiGriz. You armchair quarterbacks sure do a good job of exposing yourselves through your shameless focus on the tangential partisan aspects of this story (read: it's not about the merits of the prize which you previously knew or cared nothing about which compels you to comment, it's your personal animosity towards a president you didn't vote for being awarded something prestigious). Or maybe I'm mistaken; maybe you'd care to share who you feel SHOULD HAVE been awarded? If you feel Obama unworthy, you must have a better choice in mind, correct?

"it's your personal animosity towards a president you didn't vote for being awarded something prestigious"
-
No, not at all. I just think Norwegians are stupid, or at least the Peace Prize Committee is.
-
"Yahhhhh... Let's gib it to dat der Obama feller. He shore does talk good!! Vhat?? No, he ain't done nuttin, but dat neber stopped us before, did it? Vee gabe it to dat Carter feller, so what's da difference??"

Well done! Well done!
-
Torvald, and another member of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Olaf, were up on the roof of a barn contemplating the nominees for 2009, when they discovered that the ladder was missing. After much thought, they decided to get down by jumping in a pile of manure. Torvald went first, and yelled up to Olaf "Iz o.k.!! It be only 'bout knee deep!!" So, the Olaf jumps down, and finding it's up to his neck says "I taught you said dat it vas only knee deep??!" Torvald replied "Yah, it is -- I yumped yin it head first!!"

Sorry, that should have read like this;

One Norwegian was walking down One side of a Sidewalk,and Torvald, the head of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee was walking,going the opposite Direction. They Knew Each Other,and said the normal Pleasantries,when Torvald asked Bjorn What He was doing. "I Vas Shopping!" "Vat did You Buy?" "I Bought Me Zum Chickens!" "Oh YEAH? How Many?" "I Tell You WHAT, My Friend! If You can Tell me How many Chickens I Haf in My Shoppeeng Bag, I'll Give you BOTH of Zem!" Torvald, after a short period of thought, scratched His Head..."Three?"

Isn’t manufactured outrage great? Funny how people who likely couldn't have named 6 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates off the top of their heads before Obama was awarded are now suddenly very concerned about the prize; who it should go to; and why. Here's a question for those people: who do you feel SHOULD HAVE been awarded? If you feel Obama unworthy, you must have a better choice in mind, correct? You armchair quarterbacks sure do a good job of exposing yourselves through your shameless focus on the tangential partisan aspects of this story (read: it's not about the merits of the prize which you previously knew or cared nothing about which compels you to comment, it's your personal animosity towards a president you didn't vote for being awarded something prestigious). This has become all the more clear as discussion as recently devolved into vicarious Obama bashing through use of 'dumb Norwegian' jokes. Sad.

.
According to nobelprize.org, the Peace Prize has nothing to do with "achievement" per se, but is awarded to the nominee "who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind", and has worked for "fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Does Obama fit that description? Absolutely. Bestowing the award is simply the Committee's way of saying "we support your goals, whether achieved or in-progress, so here is some international prestige to put a little wind in your efforts' sails."

That’s exactly why Obama recognized that "this prize reflects the kind of world that (past Laureates) and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."

.
If your panties are honestly in a bunch over that sentiment, then you really need to do some serious reassessing of your priorities.

vatoloco
Every point you make is now mute. You are simply a partisan wack who doesn't care about the truth. You are more worried about Rep. or Dem. that anything else.
.
You blame Dems. for the wrongs with this country...i.e. 9/11
You defend Reps. i.e. 9/11
.
I don't blame Clinton or Bush for 9/11. I believe several mistakes were made by BOTH administrations and nobody was really thinking about that kind of attack.
.
Let me guess, you believe GW "kept us safe" while the economic mess is Obama's fault.

"vatoloco: I see you've been watching Glenn Beck again."
+
Typical of you to make a statement like that. Trying to imply that a person can't think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Using your line or reasoning, did you get your response from watching olbermann, mathews, or maddow?

DiGriz, as long as we are on the subject;

One Norwegian was walking down One side of a Sidewalk,and Another Norwegian was walking,going the opposite Direction. They Knew Each Other,and said the normal Pleasantries,when Kjell asked Bjorn What He was doing. "I Vas Shopping!" "Vat did You Buy?" "I Bought Me Zum Chickens!" "Oh YEAH? How Many?" "I Tell You WHAT, My Friend! If You can Tell me How many Chickens I Haf in My Shoppeeng Bag, I'll Give you BOTH of Zem!" The Bewildered Norwegian Scratched His Head..."Three?"

One day the future chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee says to his mother, "Mama, I got da biggest feet in da third grade and all da kids be makin' fun of me!" His mother replies "Dats because your 19!!"

vatoloco: I see you've been watching Glenn Beck again.

The Black Conservative movement is very critical of the Democratic Party for spreading leftism amongst the black population to such an extent that Afro Americans today lack self respect, family values and constantly live in the mentality of victimhood. The Black Conservative Movement vows to emancipate such tendencies from the Afro American population and make them more self reliant and financially independent. Black Conservatives are generally of the view that the Republican Party is a friend of the Afro American community as it strives to turn Afro Americans from lawlessness and despair by providing them genuine equality of opportunity.

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

"Is it possible that Obama was nominated simply for being the first African American to bring this country together enough to get past race and be elected?"

Not even close, Obama has to be one of the most unqualified candidates I have ever seen. Race has nothing to do with it. There is a new conservative trend emerging among many black folks who are tired of being stereotyped as black folks who constantly get connected to:
1. Not educated enough
2. Unemployment
3. Crime
4. Welfare

We have been fighting the war on poverty for many years. Put simply, this war will never end because folks like Obama always think they have some sort of panacea to solve society's ills. Why work hard and get empowered to succeed when we can have a president who will subsidize our future with excessive taxation? Obama has single handedly suppressed many in the black community by telling them "don't worry, I will bail you out with many of my government programs". "You don't have to work hard my friends, I will take from the ones who do work hard and give it to you.

Whythink, enough of the race card. There is no excuse why no one in this country can be successful.

"NO WE WERE NOT. DON'T INSULT US. 9/11/2001 happened on when GW was president. I don't blame him but he also DID NOT KEEP US SAFE"

Whymustuthink:

Please remind everyone who let these head cutting cowardly thugs proliferate in Somalia. Clinton did. Osama Bin Laden referred to the U.S. as the "paper tiger" when we ran away from Somalia. The Clinton administration was responsible for letting Al Qaida buildup. They had Osama Bin Laden cornered at one point and decided to keep their distance.

In the middle of a show, Torvald, the head of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee stands up and yells at the ventriloquist on stage: "Hey, you've been making enough jokes about us Norwegians, so cut it out!!" The ventriloquist looks at him and says "Hey, take it easy!! They're only jokes!! Torvald yells right back "Hey, you shut up der!! I'm talkin to the little fella!!"

“The identity of the person who nominated Obama will not be made public unless that person steps forward.”

“Nobel officials said their…pick was meant to build momentum behind Obama's initiatives…”

“Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama." "And I hope it will be an inspiration for all…”

----
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33237202/ns/...

Can anyone tell me what Obama did to deserve this prize? As the article states, he was president less than two weeks before the deadline for nominations for the prize. I would HOPE that an American politician did not earn this award for campaign promises and retoric.

Most of you people need serious help.

AP - Washington D.C
President Obama has decided to follow the lead of the last Norwegian Olympic Gold Medalist and have his Nobel Peace Prize Medal bronzed.

TORPID
-
Adjective: (comparative more torpid, superlative most torpid)
Definition:
1. unmoving, dormant or hibernating
2. lazy, lethargic or apathetic
3. action of being native to or an inhabitant of Norway
4. current state of U.S. executive influence

Well, anyway, what ELSE would you expect from the Norwegians, where it is illegal to kill a mouse, unless you intend to consume it, and where children are prohibited by law from telling knock-knock jokes if they are 12 years of age or older???

whoanellie
Oct 10, 2009 at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal whythink: the truth hurts doesn't it
.
What truth. The truth that you are completely guessing with your "in someone's pocket comment. That would you rather make that guess than give our President ANY credit or simply criticize the people actually responsible for giving him the award.
.
You would rather show your hate towards our President than actually look at the truth.
.
Again...PATHETIC!

The Quislings of Norway nominated our Dear Leader and Quisling: Barack Hussein Obama II Prophet/Messiah and Destroyer of the Constitution. It would be too funny if it was not such a pathetic attempt to prop up the big ZERO Obama, the Emperor with no clothes.

He has simply done NOTHING. He followed Bush's time tables in Iraq. He has broken all of his campaign promises. All he cares about is getting socialized medicine passed. What a joke.
First Gore gets it for lying to the whole world, (some day the plants will start dying because of lack of CO2) now this, ha ha ha...

how can you people not understand whythinks post. how is logic lost on soooooo many people....ughhh

whythink: the truth hurts doesn't it! You are right in that he has been a POLITICIAN for a long time and kissing butts all along too. He has done nothing to merit this but he greased wheels all the way and was rewarded for nothing but making the US look weak and pathetic!!

Is it possible that Obama was nominated simply for being the first African American to bring this country together enough to get past race and be elected?
.
I don't mean to bring race into this but I do think that is part of it.
.
Plus, everyone crying about this only 2 weeks as president thing. President Obama was alive and speaking a message of unity, change, peace, etc... long before being President. I never thought US President was a prerequisite for the Nobel Peace Prize yet everyone keeps bringing it up.
.
Lastly, and for the final time...everyone criticising Obama he didn't nominate or vote for himself and the award is as much for a MESSAGE/GOAL of peace as an accomplishment of peace.
.
You simply can fairly blame Obama for this one.
.
whoanellie
Oct 10, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal He must have someone in his pocket to get nominated 2 weeks into office!!
.
Whoanellie,
YOU ARE PATHETIC!

Yes, that's all very nice, Pete. Could you please be polite and simply post links to content that is not your own in the future? Easier for you than all that copy and paste, too.

It's really interesting how people have generalized my comment and read into it. I don't advocate destroying all Muslims. But I don't see us bombing any Hindu's around here, or Buddists, or Christians. Get it now?

He must have someone in his pocket to get nominated 2 weeks into office!! What has he done but go around apologizing for the US and putting us in danger and looking like a bunch of weaklings! Of course, we can't know who really nominated him for 50 years!! Good show!

"freedom, liberty and the free exchange of ideas. Ideals the conservatives are vehemently against."
-
Another untruth from Red.

"that we see it as folly that our president got an award after a mere 11 days in office certainly does not mean we hate our country."

If that were true booch11, then why are all the comments directed at President Obama. I too feel the award was premature but he didn't choose himself to win the prize and even admitted he felt others were more worthy of winning the prize than he. Tell me, why aren't the derogatory comments directed at the Nobel Prize committee members? After all, they are the individuals who awarded Mr. Obama the Nobel Prize. That's my point, Mr. Obama is being recognized as a person whose is having a positive impact in the rest of the world; a person working to bring people together. But then conservatives, like yourself, malign him for being recognized for trying to do the right thing. What an idiotic response. If you have a problem with Mr. Obama winning the Nobel Prize, blame the people who selected him. As a rule the Nobel Prize is awarded to individuals who fight for freedom, liberty and the free exchange of ideas. Ideals the conservatives are vehemently against. No wonder you have nothing good to say.

Way off the topic here but if Obama pulls all our troops out now will that make him a better president? How will that affect our homeland? How many more 9-11 attacks will we have to deal with? How many of you want to walk outside to the sound of air raids and bombs in our own country? I feel pulling out now will only put us more at jeopardy for more war. Only the war will be right here.

So far the majority of the "Obama deserves it" camp is using ex post facto justification. He was NOMINATED before he DID anything. Then conveniently a few months later he gets the award for talking a good game. He hasn't done anything more for "Peace and Goodwill among nations" than any of the other presidents. Iran still has their nuclear program, there's still troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Europe still thinks our president is a moron. Now instead of being a "warmongering" moron, he's just a "naive" moron afraid to act.

His tough stance is lip flapping and finger pointing. Say what you will about Bush, at least he backed up his statements with action. What's it say when even the French think you're all talk and no action?

"awarded to the nominee "who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind", and has worked for "fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Could somebody please tell me what he did to deserve to share this honor with the likes of Mother Teresa? I wasn't too impressed when he disrespected that police officer this past summer and then had to hold a "beer summit" to help patch things up between the cop and professor. As I recall he did nothing but fire up people into thinking the cop was a racist.

Pete - Thanks to the Patriot Act, your name is now in an FBI file somewhere because you read the Arab News.

Pete - I just heard that the democrats are close to passing a bill in congress that would make it illegal to harm any dragons. At least you got that going for you, which is nice.

Thanks Petey, but what's your point?

Thank you, JohnDoe. The enemies are not Muslims. 1 in 4 people in the world are Muslims. The enemy is the radical terrorist, not a religious devotee. These terrorists simply lie to themselves, pretending that their hatred is sanctioned by Allah, when in fact this is just an excuse for them to act violently toward those they irrationally hate.

Thank you, whythink! I second that opinion.

Honey, PLEASE send the Whiners home.

I believe Pete believes Rush Limbaugh.

Is destroying Muslims the goal?

Or is the goal destroying Muslim terrorists who want to do us harm?

Do you know the difference?

"citing his outreach to the Muslim world "
-
I just went outside my billet to smoke an evil cigarette, and watched two Predator drones lazily circling the plateau around Bagram as two F-15's landed. The purpose of these drones and fighter jets is, of course, to discover, identify, and destroy Muslims. Is that the "outreach" that the Norwegians are describing?

I just checked my e-mail and here's what I found:
.

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

I didn't know it was this easy to get a Nobel.
Here is my plan for reducing conflict in the world..we nuke 1/3 of the nations of the earth in order to reduce the number of nations - therefore we reduce the points of potential conflict by 1/3 at the same time we eliminate quite a few nuclear weapons.

since all it takes is working toward a goal of peace I plan on sending taunting emails to other countries...think I'll start with Cameroon for no particular reason.. next years $1.4 mil is as good as mine

Pete
Oct 9, 2009 at 4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal I believe Bush wears his American flag on his heart.
** I never voted for Bush but I chalk it up to being confused.
** I believe Obama has more to harm America in his first 100 days than all the previous Presidents together.

.
That is the "great" part about your argument, it is just a belief. I can believe the sky is blue, you can believe it is green. You can believe Obama will destroy us all (or already has) I can believe he is just the President and since we have 3 branches he can't do much of anything on his own.
.
Beliefs are great because they can be anything.
.
That said, beliefs are a weak argument.

the harm O has done is glaringly obvious from this award alone. hes got the WHOLE WORLD on his side and that scares the harm out of the right;)

Pete,what enemy are you refering to?
I get really tired of all of this fake patiotism that seems to be the right wing's favorite excuse for spewing such hatred and animosity.

Pete - examples of the harm, please.

Congratulations to President Obama. It would seem that he plans to donate the prize money to charity.

Why so down on the president, what has he done? he is a black man who got elected give him a break you cannot fault him yet. He has not done anything yet.

vatoloco
Oct 9, 2009 at 3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal "This award is more a reflection on the entire Bush Presidency than anything Obama has done. Wow."

At least we were kept safe during these years, Anti-American Zoom! I am so sick of your antiAmericanism.
.
NO WE WERE NOT. DON'T INSULT US. 9/11/2001 happened on when GW was president. I don't blame him but he also DID NOT KEEP US SAFE! Again, I don't blame him but everyone who makes the claim that he "kept us safe for 8 years" is simply spitting on the grave of everyone who died on 9/11 and/or the warS following that day.

Whythink - you are so right, the anger is scary. Differences of opinion are ok, even healthy. I can agree to disagree and abide by what the voters decide. I can almost empathize with these people who are so down on Obama because I know how I felt when Bush got elected the second time. BUT when the hatred and anger gets so bad that rational thinking seems to be thrown to the wind and it almost borders on paranoia, it's really scary. I can only hope that a lot of the beliefs and opinions that I read here are from a small (but very vocal) minority.

I dont hate, especially our president, and I wouldn't call myself a member of either party.
In fact, if you are close minded enough to pick a party-or side for democracy-then I think you lack the open mindedness to make a decision on our president.
If you are close minded enough to pick a party, and then justify not taking on different views from the other party-then the whole concept of our system has already been lost, and we should just govern ourselves independently.
To stay on one side of the fence is just ignorant. It shouldn't be dems/repubs. It should be individual views, moral value of those rules and popularity of acceptance as correct.

My point is, I don't agree with the committees decision, and I don't think it was made without outside forces and media inflicting serious bias on it all.

Sad face

Whythink...I agree with you.

Maybe he won because he is using tactfulness and respect to restore our relations with other countries around the world. Not like Bush that seemed to just piss everyone off.

"This award is more a reflection on the entire Bush Presidency than anything Obama has done. Wow."

At least we were kept safe during these years, Anti-American Zoom! I am so sick of your antiAmericanism.

This is why I cannot relate to the Republican Party anymore.
.
When President Obama gives a great speech...they rip his use of a teleprompter.
.
When President Obama wants to speak to our children and promote a message stressing the importance of education and hardwork...they protest.
.
When President Obama struggles with the decision to send another 40,000 troops to war...they rip away.
.
When President Obama works to get Chicago, USA the olympics...they cheer that "he" lost.
.
When President Obama takes his case to the American people on TV...they cry "no transparency."
.
When President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize...they criticize the award and the President.
.
I remember years ago watching David Letterman ask Rush if he could name 1 positive accomplishment of then President Clinton...he couldn't.
.
I got passed that and voted for GW twice but the party, led by GW, Rush, Hannity, Fox News, and more recently Beck has lost me. I am very much a moderate but cannot support the Republican party anymore. They are so full of hate and anger that President Obama is their President it is truly scary.
.
I thought GW got a raw deal and strongly supported him in 2004. I later realized how he, like Clinton, lied to me and began really looking at the democrats message. By 2006 I was done with GW and disgusted with his version of the consitution.
.
This anger, not any political policy, but this anger is what is hurting this country. Nobody, NOBODY can figure out the truth anymore.
.
Oh and BTW, like others have said. I have never heard anyone other than right wing nuts call Obama the messiah or the chosen one. Many liberals, true liberals aren't happy with him on many issues. True left wing liberals are far from seeing Obama as any type of chosen messiah.

panamared,
that we see it as folly that our president got an award after a mere 11 days in office certainly does not mean we hate our country.
this is a guess, but did you agree with president bush - ever? and if you did not - did you hate the country?

What a JOKE! I just about puked up my last 3 meals when I heard about this.

It is amazing how many people posting here hate this country. The President of OUR nation was awarded a prestigious prize which few have been honored to receive. The prize may not have been based on a specific action but, as inconvenienttruth points out, "awarded to the nominee "who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind", and has worked for "fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
WE as a nation, should be proud that the Nobel Committee searched the WORLD, then chose to honor our President with an award which is widely regarded as the most prestigious one can receive. But instead, their comments are filled with hate, denigration, and ridicule against our President and, in effect, our country. They would rather vilify President Obama than celebrate the recognition that the leader of America is being honored for his desire to bring nations together in an effort to end nuclear proliferation and find peaceful resolutions through negotiation rather than by force alone. It is a great privilege for all Americans to have our sitting President awarded the Nobel prize.

This must be a joke. Has to be. What has he done? Absolutely nothing. He begs frogaiveness and assumes responsibility for all, even though, it has been the actions of others and our appropriate response to their actions. In the end, he has driven and may continue to drive our economy into the abyss, he will insure all even though they may be illegally in the US, he will let loose the terrorists in Cuba, move our economy towards a socialist - marxist society.

Yep -- I would give that an award. It will allow all other economies to have a chance to overwelm us.

Pete- Great quote by the way.

The nobel peace prize? Really? How many other more suited candidates did we pass up just to artificially inflate his status? I'm not saying I'm against Barack, I'm not even saying he's not doing a great job, but as far as the Nobel Peace Prize goes? Not even close.

It'll be funny to see what kind of reaction the Nobel Peace Prize committee gives when Obama gives the green light to sending MORE troops overseas.

http://orrinwoodward.blogharbor.com/blog...

I am so proud of our President, because despite the much tossed around words like "socialist" and "communism" which are truly false in the real sense of the words, he still stands above all others.

He worked before he was even in office to strive towards strengthening ties between countries, something we all know will help our future endeavors, despite criticism. This is why I voted for him and am still proud of it, he has the intelligence to move forward, he knows to get out of war it won't be an "overnight" project, anyone in their right mind knows this will still take years, but he is working harder for the United States then I've seen other presidents do so recently and it shows.

If diplomacy can be reached, this will be better for the U.S. in regards for jobs (increase because we would be able to send what we make to other countries, instead of all the imports, meaning more jobs); peace (more ready to accept us once again instead of our tarnished past); and education (think of how much more advanced some of these countries are in regards to education and the things which could be learned).

There is much more that would come because of of the work OUR President has been doing, and if we all worked together and backed him, like a NATION it would united this country like no other.

Stand up, don't separate!

Calli--Sorry, but I have to disagree. While it is certainly true that the Democratic party has, and has always had, its share of goofballs, they have never comprised the entire membership of the party--only a segment of it. It seems to me that the republican party, on the other hand, has completely given itself over to the most extreme of the nutjobs, and that they now ARE the party.

PERFECT POST INCONVENIENTTRUTH

The media, especially today with information being so accessible and pounded into our conscience's every second, can and is very misleading if "WE" as a society aren't able to decifer good information from bad. There is no comparing Obama to Hitler......YET! I hope I'm wrong here. However, one of the most respected media sources in the past century of this country's history, TIME MAGAZINE, named Adolph Hitler their man of the year in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1939 and 1942 and Ayatullah Khomeini in 1979. Throughout history, we've had many sheep in wolves clothing. We've proven over and over again that as a society in this country, we're not exactly the most proficient at learning from our past mistakes! What this country is lacking is infact, LEADERSHIP! Plain and simple. This isn't just about Obama or our past presidents either! It's about us as individuals that make up this great country deciding to act like leaders and do the things it takes to instill things like "Virtue", "Valor", "Honor", "Sincerity" and "Integrity" (all the building blocks of great leadership) back into our culture before it's all whisked away on our watch! You and I can all play our part too! It starts at home, leading our children and families.

makr-I agree but you can easily put "democrats" and "left wing" in place of "republicans" and "right wong" and it would still be true.

"I see Andre is still up to his usual name calling. Before you call someone stupid, Andre, you might want to start capitalizing proper names. Most kids learn that in second grade."
+
nvgrf, shall I go back and post the comments you have made calling people names? I don't capitalize certain names for a reason. Notice I didn't capitalize your handle? Guess what that reason might be precinct captain.

support~ are you going to be the next one making this out to be a republican vs democrat thing too? Both parties have their hands in the decline of this country. Obama speaks of unity and world peace, just like Bush and his clan did. How about these two parties take a good look in their own backyards and starts right there? Don't you see this is exactly what our gov't. wants??!! Dumb people who can't understand that simple concept. I personally don't believe our society is as dumb as many may think......I think the better word is apathetic!

markr,
keep thinking that. well see next november.

The reaction of the neo-cons here really proves that the republican party is now a mere fringe group, completely out of touch with reality and with mainstream America. Their posts read like they were composed by a small band of psychotics who refuse to take their meds. The right-wing has turned the party into a tiny group of insane lunatics. All intelligent people who can view issues with the proper moderation have fled the party.

Pete, is that "Chairman Mia" Tse Tung Wasn't she married to Woody Allen once upon a time?

voting took place 11 days after The One took office. 11 days.
Can the winner of the Nobel Peace Price possibly send the requested 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan? Or does he roll over and accept defeat? (a defeat the affects ALL of us.)

kleej; "I choose to be among the educated... as opposed to the many who have been dummed down by the propaganda that's been spewed by the evil "prideful" that are in leadership positions in this country."
.
Uhm, "death panels" ring a bell? Hello pot, this is kettle.

Awesome post inconvenient. I could not agree with you more on this one. Good to see you using that "stunning intellect" of yours to defend a position that is truly deserving of your almost fanatical efforts to get your point across.
Really, you have pretty much said it all and I find there is nothing I can add to this debate that you have not already stated.

inconvenienttruth.....very well said!

Isn’t manufactured outrage great? Funny how people who likely couldn't have named 6 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates off the top of their heads yesterday are now suddenly very concerned about the prize; who it should go to; and why. At least you armchair quarterbacks do a good job of exposing yourselves through your shameless focus on the tangential partisan aspects of this story (read: it's not about the merits of the prize which you previously knew or cared nothing about which compels you to comment, it's your personal animosity towards a president you didn't vote for being awarded something prestigious). According to nobelprize.org, the Peace Prize has nothing to do with "achievement" per se, but is awarded to the nominee "who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind", and has worked for "fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Does Obama fit that description? Absolutely. Bestowing the award is simply the Committee's way of saying "we support your goals, whether achieved or in-progress, so here is some international prestige to put a little wind in your efforts' sails." That’s exactly why Obama recognized that "this prize reflects the kind of world that (past Laureates) and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century." If your panties are honestly in a bunch over that sentiment, then you really need to do some serious reassessing of your priorities.

I see Andre is still up to his usual name calling. Before you call someone stupid, Andre, you might want to start capitalizing proper names. Most kids learn that in second grade.

Nobody compared obama to hitler. It was pointed out that hitler was nominated for the prize, that is a fact. It was pointed out to show how ridiculous all the hoopla over this "prize" is. I see you still have an unlimited supply of stupidity to exibit.

This award is more a reflection on the entire Bush Presidency than anything Obama has done. Wow.

How dare you compare Obama to Hitler. Only stupid rednecks would say something so ridiculous. Bush is your war happy idiot and you followed him off the cliff and never looked back. Now you want to complain about the huge mess Bush left and blame it on Obama. You have no one to blame but YOURSELVES ! How can we take anything you Bush lovers say seriously ! Your inability to comprehend anything outside your right wing bubble is the biggest joke of all. Wake up and stop watching Fox news. You all make me sick !

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_o...
+
This line from this article pretty much sums up why he won this prize. "The prize seems to be more for Obama's promise than for his performance."

I guess maybe you have to value world peace more than your own limited point of view to get why he deserves this award.

Excerpt from AP article:

Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.

"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts."

Big deal, even hitler was nominated for the noble peace prize. algore won for something that wasn't even related to peace, that just about sums it up.

Our president should humbly turn it down on the grounds that he hasn't accomplished anyting yet, and (although he shouldn't say it) he has a lot to do without being bothered by this distraction.
He should know he has something to prove, but this proves nothing. If his administration can defang Iran, stabilize Pakistan, get the Israelis and Palestinians to to start a real peace process or bring peace to just one of those conflict-ridden African countries, then yeah, give him the prize.

support; I'm speaking of the kind of pride called arrogance! The conscience of this country has become so "prideful" amongst the self serving that hope has been stolen from right under people's noses. In short, this country is asleep at the wheel! You call me ignorant, your opinion. I choose to be among the educated as to what's really going on this country as opposed to the many who have been dummed down by the propaganda that's been spewed by the evil "prideful" that are in leadership positions in this country. Obama's award is all fine and dandy, but a true leader isn't in to who get's the credit or "how do you like me now".......they do the right things for the right reasons! Something I'm not so convinced Mr. Obama is doing. My opinion? Yes...... but, an educated one at that!

Since most folks get their political news from SNL, this probably comes as a surprise.

Kleej: "The root of all conflict is PRIDE".
.
So you must NOT be proud to be an American? You want to talk about ignorance..
.
By the way, Obama didn't ask to be awarded. The awarding was left up to the Norwegian Nobel commitee.

Our biggest battle in this country is IGNORANT ARROGANCE! This country biggest enemy is propaganda. Here's a tip for our dear president Obama: The root of all conflict is PRIDE! Never forget it! Of course, you'd have to understand what that means first.

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to go to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
.
Obama has the ear of many more nations since he's taken office (fraternity between nations). I'd say that's an accomplishment. If you want to blame someone for Obama winning this prize, blame Bush for turning so many countries against the U.S.

I thought people got Nominated for actually doing something. The SNL skit last week was dead on. I hope they do another one this week

I'd put more stock in an MTV award than this pile of crap anymore. This ought to really help with this man's already overly bloated opinion of himself. Maybe he can blame winning the peace prize on Bush too, that seems to be about the only play he knows how to run, that or "trust me, and if you don't, you must be a racist".

If there were a Nobel Hate Prize, George Bush and Dick Cheney would have certainly been a multiple winners.

I love it when people pluck one line, out of context, out of the bible to prove their point. How about this then?
-Luke 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

Either quote could apply to anybody! Just depends on how you want to use it.

Cool, I needed a good laugh today.

Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Luke 6:26

The savior of the human race President Obama.
And prounion says there is no god. Behold Almighty Obama.

I thought the Nobel awards where for accomplishing something. What happened here?

Yes, I'm sure that the world is glad that Obama is now the President of the U.S., just like the Nazis were glad that Neville Chamberlain was made Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1937.

The Nobel Peace Prize has for the last few decades been more like the Nobel P.C. Prize. It's funny that Teddy Roosevelt's name has been raised in this discussion. If Teddy were alive today I wonder what his chances could be of winning that prize now. He was, after all a warmonger who lead a cavalry charge up San Juan hill which he parlayed into personal fame and eventually the Presidency both for himself and his legacy, F.D.R. What a difference a century makes. Then, to win that prize one had to actually do something like help win a war that brought about peace. Now, all on has to do is talk up peace as if you really mean it to win that quickly fading in stature prize.

Ha ha, I knew there would be plenty of griping about this one. Don't worry, I'm sure you are all correct.....and it's the whole rest of the world that's got it wrong. Everyone's entitled to their opinion and viewpoint but I think a lot of the world gave a huge sigh of relief when Obama took over from Bush. Bullying is not good in our schools or in world politics.

April Fools! Right?

Poor Martin Luther King, Jr. All he did was fight for the rights of others and he died for it. Nelson Mandella spent a couple decades of his life in prison fighting for freedom. All Obama had to do was nothing. I bet they feel jobbed!

yeah, you haters know who should not get the award more than the committee. im surprised they didnt call for your opinion...

I am sure that if the Nobel committee had a prize for invading countries, torturing, violating human rights while never taking responsibility and being a buffoon, George Bush would have been the winner. But, they don't.

How come only Conservatives refer to Pres. Obama as the messiah? Sounds like love to me.

markr:
.
I should have been clear that I was referring to recent awards. But, if you have to go all the way back to Teddy to find a “good” example, I think you’ve made the point for me.
.
I understand the deadline was 2 Feb, but so what? He’s going to be prez for another 3 years, why not wait until he does something useful before he’s nominated? It’s like giving the Heisman award to a college freshman after he’s played his first game, since he’s so full of hope and promise. Sorry, this one is a total travesty.

Hey, facts...for eight years we listened to ronald rayguns say in his horse-whinny voice, "Weeelllll, I'm still a-tryin' to clean up the mess left by the guy who came before me..." and all the neo-cons nodded in solemn agreement. Everything at that time was, in the eyes of neo-cons, Jimmy Carter's fault, even though ronnie had been pretneding to be the president for many years. Did you call on the neo-cons to put the blame on ronnie then, or to stop blaming Bill Clinton after several years, when they, again, blamed a past president for many years after he left office? Or is this just something you do when it's a Democratic president?

Best commentary I've seen yet, "The Nobel Peace Prize now looks like the Upward Soccer "Most Improved Team Spirit" award." Dr. Russell Moore

He has done nothing to earn this - it cheapens the honor that has been bestowed on deserving winners in the past.

Obama Begins Air-Raiding Villages & Killing Innocent Civilians
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/0...
-
Of course, Obama has also surged Bush's invasion of Afghanstan. If this is his peace, I don't want to see his aggression.

I'm just not seeing this. It's like giving a car salesman an award. Sure he can sell a car like nobody's business, but is the car going to live up to all the hype. Hopefully, at some point, Obama will be successful. At this point, there has been very little, if anything, achieved.

and an April 1st announcement would have been much more appropriate.

sorry--Feb 1st deadline

northman...you picked an awfully select group to whine about. Theodore Roosevelt won it, too. What a hater of Democracy HE was, huh? As far as the nomination goes, there is a strictly enforced nomination deadline of February 2nd. The nomination HAD to be made at that time. And lastly, if you read today's Chicago Tribune (one of the nation's largest Republican newspapers, by the way), you'll see that while the myth about the prize is that it goes to those whose work on behalf of peace has already been successful, this is NOT its purpose. It is, as the selectors make very clear, intended to encourage those who have begun the struggle to make peace a reality to continue in their endeavors.

Nominated after less than two weeks of holding office, by which time he had accomplished exactly nothing, Obama wins for restoring “hope”. YGBSM! But then, former winners include Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat . . . in other words, to win the “Peace Price”, it helps if you’ve done your best to damage America and destroy our democratic values.