Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Geez! Stop the whining and just be happy that a US president has received some recognition.

I have never seen so much negativity from people ... except from my x-wife ... and what a miserable soul.

Would you be happy if Bush won it?

Predictable answer - "He didn't deserve it, and he never would have gotten it"

Thanks, no need to post an answer I already know what yours is.

Obama didn't start the wars, he inherited them.

It's not the same, no matter how much you want to relativise them.

If Obama turns Afghanistan into another Vietnam - massive increases of troop numbers, a massive carpet bombing campaign; and a pull out after several more years, 50,000+ US casualties etc - then yes I will agree with you.

As it stands - he hasn't done any of that.

Did he or did he not bomb Pakistan? Did he or did he not attack pirates?

Yes.

Military action doesn't make one a warmonger unless one makes a habit of it. Opening up two major wars makes Bush a warmonger.

Whether Obama will be one remains to be seen.

So its a rule, Obama started 1 war.. Bush started 2 - therefore Bush is the warmonger because he went over the 1 war rule.

I guess Clinton failed that test eh? Since he was involved in more than 1

Where you're going wrong is in the assumption that a bar fight is somehow equivalent to a major war.

People die either way eh? Is it a question of "how many?" Who sets these rules? The libs? <-- I had to throw that in there to tweak you.

Semantic nonsense.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Geez! Stop the whining and just be happy that a US president has received some recognition.

I have never seen so much negativity from people ... except from my x-wife ... and what a miserable soul.

Would you be happy if Bush won it?

Predictable answer - "He didn't deserve it, and he never would have gotten it"

Thanks, no need to post an answer I already know what yours is.

Obama didn't start the wars, he inherited them.

It's not the same, no matter how much you want to relativise them.

If Obama turns Afghanistan into another Vietnam - massive increases of troop numbers, a massive carpet bombing campaign; and a pull out after several more years, 50,000+ US casualties etc - then yes I will agree with you.

As it stands - he hasn't done any of that.

Did he or did he not bomb Pakistan? Did he or did he not attack pirates?

Yes.

Military action doesn't make one a warmonger unless one makes a habit of it. Opening up two major wars makes Bush a warmonger.

Whether Obama will be one remains to be seen.

So its a rule, Obama started 1 war.. Bush started 2 - therefore Bush is the warmonger because he went over the 1 war rule.

I guess Clinton failed that test eh? Since he was involved in more than 1

Where you're going wrong is in the assumption that a bar fight is somehow equivalent to a major war.

People die either way eh? Is it a question of "how many?" Who sets these rules? The libs? <-- I had to throw that in there to tweak you.

Semantic nonsense.

No it isn't. Obama bombed Pakistan unprovoked and therefore is a warmonger by your own standards. He is continuing 2 wars (flubbing one) that his base demanded be ENDED and WITHDRAWN when Bush was in power. So, I don't want to hear any of your excuses you Obama lover.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Geez! Stop the whining and just be happy that a US president has received some recognition.

I have never seen so much negativity from people ... except from my x-wife ... and what a miserable soul.

Would you be happy if Bush won it?

Predictable answer - "He didn't deserve it, and he never would have gotten it"

Thanks, no need to post an answer I already know what yours is.

Obama didn't start the wars, he inherited them.

It's not the same, no matter how much you want to relativise them.

If Obama turns Afghanistan into another Vietnam - massive increases of troop numbers, a massive carpet bombing campaign; and a pull out after several more years, 50,000+ US casualties etc - then yes I will agree with you.

As it stands - he hasn't done any of that.

Did he or did he not bomb Pakistan? Did he or did he not attack pirates?

Yes.

Military action doesn't make one a warmonger unless one makes a habit of it. Opening up two major wars makes Bush a warmonger.

Whether Obama will be one remains to be seen.

So its a rule, Obama started 1 war.. Bush started 2 - therefore Bush is the warmonger because he went over the 1 war rule.

I guess Clinton failed that test eh? Since he was involved in more than 1

Where you're going wrong is in the assumption that a bar fight is somehow equivalent to a major war.

People die either way eh? Is it a question of "how many?" Who sets these rules? The libs? <-- I had to throw that in there to tweak you.

Semantic nonsense.

No it isn't. Obama bombed Pakistan unprovoked and therefore is a warmonger by your own standards. He is continuing 2 wars (flubbing one) that his base demanded be ENDED and WITHDRAWN when Bush was in power. So, I don't want to hear any of your excuses you Obama lover.

More semantic nonsense.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I also like to set the rules. Anybody who falls into rhetorics needs to be put be led onto the streets and live on the sidewalks.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Geez! Stop the whining and just be happy that a US president has received some recognition.

I have never seen so much negativity from people ... except from my x-wife ... and what a miserable soul.

Would you be happy if Bush won it?

Predictable answer - "He didn't deserve it, and he never would have gotten it"

Thanks, no need to post an answer I already know what yours is.

Obama didn't start the wars, he inherited them.

It's not the same, no matter how much you want to relativise them.

If Obama turns Afghanistan into another Vietnam - massive increases of troop numbers, a massive carpet bombing campaign; and a pull out after several more years, 50,000+ US casualties etc - then yes I will agree with you.

As it stands - he hasn't done any of that.

Did he or did he not bomb Pakistan? Did he or did he not attack pirates?

Yes.

Military action doesn't make one a warmonger unless one makes a habit of it. Opening up two major wars makes Bush a warmonger.

Whether Obama will be one remains to be seen.

So its a rule, Obama started 1 war.. Bush started 2 - therefore Bush is the warmonger because he went over the 1 war rule.

I guess Clinton failed that test eh? Since he was involved in more than 1

Where you're going wrong is in the assumption that a bar fight is somehow equivalent to a major war.

People die either way eh? Is it a question of "how many?" Who sets these rules? The libs? <-- I had to throw that in there to tweak you.

Semantic nonsense.

No it isn't. Obama bombed Pakistan unprovoked and therefore is a warmonger by your own standards. He is continuing 2 wars (flubbing one) that his base demanded be ENDED and WITHDRAWN when Bush was in power. So, I don't want to hear any of your excuses you Obama lover.

More semantic nonsense.

Giving up that easy eh? I see. I accept your concession.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Joe, there's so much dishonesty in your arguments that its a wonder you don't have to screw yourself into your trousers when you get dressed of a morning.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Joe, there's so much dishonesty in your arguments that its a wonder you don't have to screw yourself into your trousers when you get dressed of a morning.

There's so much truth in my posts that you just can't handle it all at once.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your idea of truth reminds me of that Spinal Tap album.

$hit sandwich.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Here is a truth table

A Nand B

A | B | Y

0 | 0 | 1

0 | 1 | 1

1 | 0 | 1

1 | 1 | 0

Here's Joseph Truth Table

A | B | Y

0 | 0 | 0

0 | 1 | 0

1 | 0 | 0

1 | 1 | 1

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Your idea of truth reminds me of that Spinal Tap album.

$hit sandwich.

Thats because you live in Bizarro world

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your idea of truth reminds me of that Spinal Tap album.

$hit sandwich.

Thats because you live in Bizarro world

Says the guy with T-800 Partisan Vision

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If the only way to earn the Nobel Peace prize is by achieving peace, then there wouldn't be any such award to date as the world has yet to see the day when it lives in peace. Rather, the prize is awarded to individuals and/or organizations that work towards that goal and promote peaceful avenues of diplomacy and cooperation rather than military action or other acts of violence.

The US has been on the latter course for the past 8 years and one thing the new President is demonstrating is that he seeks to change that course. Naturally, that does not sit well with the gun toting, chest beating, my-way-or-the-highway crowd that Bush and his inept neo-cons tended to please but it does a heck of a lot more in terms of promoting peaceful coexistence of peoples across the globe and towards the elusive goal of peace in the world than the old road could ever dream to accomplish.

Empty Empty... Excuses excuses.

He doesn't deserve the award. Stop towing the line.

Fortunately, Joe, people that grasp the concept and complexity of interational relations, organizations and diplomacy get to make these decisions. Quite obviously, you're not one of them.

You're hilarious. You just in soooooo many useless words admitted he has done NOTHING, and yet you still think he deserves an award (even if in a couple years these "TRIES" are failures)

You don't understand a thing I said.

Yes i do.. You gave paragraph after paragraph of excuses on how Obama hasn't really done anything, but he is given "hope" to the world (even though most Soviet satellite states can't stand him - i guess they don't count). Then you proceed to imply he deserves the award.

As I said, not a thing. International relations and diplomacy are far out your league, cowboy. Same goes for the Yahoo that occupied the White House prior to Obama.

Oh, and I could have sworn the Soviet empire came down decades ago. They still have satellite states?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

If the only way to earn the Nobel Peace prize is by achieving peace, then there wouldn't be any such award to date as the world has yet to see the day when it lives in peace. Rather, the prize is awarded to individuals and/or organizations that work towards that goal and promote peaceful avenues of diplomacy and cooperation rather than military action or other acts of violence.

The US has been on the latter course for the past 8 years and one thing the new President is demonstrating is that he seeks to change that course. Naturally, that does not sit well with the gun toting, chest beating, my-way-or-the-highway crowd that Bush and his inept neo-cons tended to please but it does a heck of a lot more in terms of promoting peaceful coexistence of peoples across the globe and towards the elusive goal of peace in the world than the old road could ever dream to accomplish.

Empty Empty... Excuses excuses.

He doesn't deserve the award. Stop towing the line.

Fortunately, Joe, people that grasp the concept and complexity of interational relations, organizations and diplomacy get to make these decisions. Quite obviously, you're not one of them.

You're hilarious. You just in soooooo many useless words admitted he has done NOTHING, and yet you still think he deserves an award (even if in a couple years these "TRIES" are failures)

You don't understand a thing I said.

Yes i do.. You gave paragraph after paragraph of excuses on how Obama hasn't really done anything, but he is given "hope" to the world (even though most Soviet satellite states can't stand him - i guess they don't count). Then you proceed to imply he deserves the award.

As I said, not a thing. International relations and diplomacy are far out your league, cowboy. Same goes for the Yahoo that occupied the White House prior to Obama.

Oh, and I could have sworn the Soviet empire came down decades ago. They still have satellite states?

They are still called that by many. I would expect someone who claims to be an expert to know that.

More of the "i'm smart you'r dumb" argument that libs like to use as a copout.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

More of the whining victimhood that self-described conservatives use as a copout.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If the only way to earn the Nobel Peace prize is by achieving peace, then there wouldn't be any such award to date as the world has yet to see the day when it lives in peace. Rather, the prize is awarded to individuals and/or organizations that work towards that goal and promote peaceful avenues of diplomacy and cooperation rather than military action or other acts of violence.

The US has been on the latter course for the past 8 years and one thing the new President is demonstrating is that he seeks to change that course. Naturally, that does not sit well with the gun toting, chest beating, my-way-or-the-highway crowd that Bush and his inept neo-cons tended to please but it does a heck of a lot more in terms of promoting peaceful coexistence of peoples across the globe and towards the elusive goal of peace in the world than the old road could ever dream to accomplish.

Empty Empty... Excuses excuses.

He doesn't deserve the award. Stop towing the line.

Fortunately, Joe, people that grasp the concept and complexity of interational relations, organizations and diplomacy get to make these decisions. Quite obviously, you're not one of them.

You're hilarious. You just in soooooo many useless words admitted he has done NOTHING, and yet you still think he deserves an award (even if in a couple years these "TRIES" are failures)

You don't understand a thing I said.

Yes i do.. You gave paragraph after paragraph of excuses on how Obama hasn't really done anything, but he is given "hope" to the world (even though most Soviet satellite states can't stand him - i guess they don't count). Then you proceed to imply he deserves the award.

As I said, not a thing. International relations and diplomacy are far out your league, cowboy. Same goes for the Yahoo that occupied the White House prior to Obama.

Oh, and I could have sworn the Soviet empire came down decades ago. They still have satellite states?

They are still called that by many. I would expect someone who claims to be an expert to know that.

More of the "i'm smart you'r dumb" argument that libs like to use as a copout.

Many people you hang with may still call these countries Soviet satellites. But most people would not. Certainly those coming from or living there would rather not have that reference made. It's as invalid as referring to the US as a British colony. Coming from a state that used to be a Soviet satellite, I don't think that referring to my country of origin as a Soviet satellite state is acceptable. Former Soviet satellite state, yes. Soviet satellite state? Absolutely not.