U.S. President Barack Obama smiles after making remarks on regulatory reform in the East Room at the White House in Washington October 9, 2009. Earlier in the day, Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES POLITICS)
Apparently, SNL’s skit was premature. Maybe President Obama hasn’t actually accomplished the following:
1. Closing Gitmo (same as Bush)
2 Outlawing torture by revoking Bush’s EO that said much the same thing
3. Withdrawal from Iraq (thanks to Bush)
4. De-escalation of war in Afghanistan (campaigned that it was the necessary war and now dithers as more American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan this year, than in the previous 7 years)
5. peace between Israel and Palestine
6. Olympics in Chicago
7. Supporting democratic movement in Iran
8. Supporting democracy in Honduras
9. nuclear disarmament
But, hey, so what?! At least he’s now won the Nobel Peace Prize for non-accomplishment; and delivered a presidential promise to use this award as a rallying “call to action”. It’s the thought and rhetoric that counts, right? Basically, he’s being awarded for what he may accomplish in the future (Even supporters are questioning, “Why?”). If his pretty words actually inspires us to achieve peace, enhances international relations, then some day in the future, maybe the award will have been earned. Here’s a novel idea: Why not award the prize to him THEN?!
I’m not trying to be funny, here; I wouldn’t want to be accused of siding with the terrorists.
But seriously, folks…
WASHINGTON/OSLO (Reuters) – Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement and drew both praise and skepticism around the world.
The bestowal of one of the world’s top accolades on a president less than nine months in office, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.
Awww….they love him not for the leader he is, but for the leader he wants to be; for saying what they want to hear.
Kim Priestap writes:
“If just wanting world [peace], talking about world peace is enough to get the Nobel Peace Prize then every beauty pageant winner should have gotten one. “
Obama said he felt humbled and unworthy of being counted in the company of the “transformative figures” of history who had won the prize.
Maybe CNN and Wolf Blitzer would care to factcheck this one for actual accomplishments in the pursuit of peace? Even President Obama isn’t buying it. He doesn’t sound humbled; more like embarrassed.
“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership,” he said, speaking in the White House Rose Garden. “I will accept this award as a call to action.”
Kanye West, at this point had to interrupt the acceptance speech with the following:
“Hey, hey Barack, I’m really happy for you, I’mma let you finish, but I just want to say his teleprompter had one of the best bids of all time. OF ALL TIME.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” citing his fledgling push for nuclear disarmament and his outreach to the Muslim world.
What about Reagan’s push for nuclear disarmament?
What about Bush’s “outreach to the Muslim world”?
Just 12 days into his presidency, what had President Obama done thus far to join the ranks of Carter, Gore, and Arafat in garnering such a prestigious nomination as the highly credible Nobel Peace Prize?
1. He campaigned in 2008 to escalate the “necessary” war in Afghanistan
2. He campaigned in 2008 to invade a sovereign ally, Pakistan, to go after al Qaeda and out-Bush, Bush.
153+ were killed within the first week of of his peace presidency, including the continuation of Predator drone attacks in Pakistan.
Obama has been widely credited with improving America’s global image after the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, who alienated both friends and foes with go-it-alone policies like the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Bush alienated friends with “go-it-alone” policies? Really?!
So Bush can be credited for the Obama peace prize award.
President Obama campaigns in ’08 against President Bush; and goes around the world on his grand Apology Tour and wins acclaim.
Niiiiiiice….
But critics called the Nobel’s committee’s decision premature, given that Obama so far has made little tangible headway as he grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea.
The White House had no idea the Nobel announcement was coming. Obama, who got the news of the prize in a pre-dawn call from his press secretary, now also has the burden of living up to its expectations.
The first African-American to hold his country’s highest office, Obama, 48, has struggled with a slew of foreign policy problems bequeathed to him by Bush, while taking a more multilateral approach than his predecessor.
Despite troubles at home including a struggling economy that have eroded his once-lofty approval ratings, the Democratic U.S. president is still widely seen around the world as an inspirational figure.
How did President Bush not exercise diplomacy and multilateralism?
Yes. Bush’s fault.
Also blogging:
The Anchoress
Bottomline Upfront
Brutally Honest
Bookworm Room
Gateway Pundit
The Radio Patriot
Michelle Malkin
I thought Obama’s own remarks regarding the prize were right on target. The Nobel Peace prize has very often been awarded in the cause of furthering peace — giving a boost to someone who is trying to bring about some sort of meritorious transformation, rather than solely being an award for some type of achievement (like the other Nobels and like, for example, the Oscars).
The Nobel Committee likes what Obama is trying to do and is trying to give him a helping hand in this. You can legitimately argue whether or not Obama’s approach to peace deserves such encouragement, but it’s a waste of emotion to argue whether or not he “deserves” the award. He’s officially stated that he doesn’t deserve to be honored, but that he views the award as encouragement for the direction in which he’s trying to take the country.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Examples, please, of other people who have received the Nobel Peace Prize, not for actual accomplishment, but for good intentions instead.
Excellent response, Aye.
A few recent examples:
Intergovernment council on climate change 2007
Shirin Ebadi 2003
Kim Dae-jung 2000
International campaign to ban landmines 1997
East Timor peace activists 1996
Pugwash 1995
Arafat, Peres, Rabin 1994
etc.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA (nb: note that not all awardees went on to achieve what the Nobel Committee hoped that they would)
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
So, you’re prepared to say that the folks on the list you provided had no actual accomplishments at the time their prizes were awarded….but mere good intentions instead?
Interesting.
False, but interesting.
Bush liberated 50 million people in 2 countries, planting the seeds of democracy. Truly stable democracies and greater human rights are still a long way off in those places. Does Bush still get his prize today, for what may be bound to happen generations from now? Or for at least giving it the ol’ college try for effort and having his heart in the right place?
President Bush was allegedly nominated for the Peace Prize
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.asp
I am unaware of any precedent for Nobel Peace prizes being awarded to encourage wars of liberation, declared by outside powers. Perhaps some sort of prize should be awarded for the declaration of “good wars,” (without getting into the arguments over whether or not the Iraq War qualifies as such), but it seems oxymoronic to give a peace prize for the declaration of war.
P.S. Note also that it was claimed that Bush was nominated for the Nobel Prize only 11 days after his inauguration, beating Obama’s nomination by 1 day.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Pingback: The Snooper Report
Larry,
Please reread your link, because that’s not what the urban legend site says.
Also note, they can’t count.
Inauguration: Jan 20th.
Deadline: Feb 1st.
31 days in January…..
I love this quote on your Snopes link:
Apparently, the Messiah is a remarkable achiever of non-achievements.
MARTTI AHTISAARI (2008 laureate) for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts vs. Obama’s 12 days of dithering and blathering.
Yet who has greater recognition for accomplishments, real and imagined?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
That darned reading comprehension thing is tricky, eh?
This should show future Presidents, that is if we are allowed to have them, how to win the Peace Prize. Fly all around the world and bad mouth your country, working to destroy your country,and bankrupting the USA. Sure winner!
The Prize wasn’t awarded after 12 days; he was merely nominated. Apparently more than a hundred people are nominated every year; so a nomination is no big deal; by the time the decision had been made to give Obama the prize, the Committee had more grist for its decision to give him a helping hand.
(by the way, the wording in my Snopes link was changed, just moments after I posted my link. The wording was different (you may be able to find a Google cache version; I don’t have time to search) and the conclusion was “TRUE” rather than “Mixed.”)
With regard to Mr. Ahtisaari, this was a well-deserved lifetime achievement award. As I wrote, sometimes Peace Prizes are true awards for achievement, e.g. Ahtisaari, and sometimes they are to encourage hoped for future achievement (e.g. climate change mitigation). I think it’s perfectly obvious why the Nobel Committee chose to give Obama a boost right now. He’s in a very powerful position and the committee likes his approach to global problems and is cognizant of his current difficulties, which threaten support for his overall agenda. Of course, it’s entirely political, but “peace” is often a political challenge.
Also, even in the sciences, there are many Nobel awardees who got prizes for “discoveries” which were later disproved. A lot of years, I quarrel over the choice of the Heisman Trophy winner. It’s all human subjectivity.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Aye (#8)
Guys, I changed the wording of my post before I got your comments. Part of the problem is that the wording of the Snopes link was changed, literally moments after I posted the link.
- Larry W/HB
I believe you, as they’ve already updated it with the reference to Obama’s award.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
We know he was nominated in 12; awarded today. The point being, why he even deserved nomination, 12 days into his presidency. What had he accomplished other than campaigning on the message of “hope” and “change” and that he wasn’t Bush? Some accomplishment. Contrast that to Ahtisaari’s decades of real work.
@wordsmith (#12)
As I wrote, there are more than 100 nominees every year (I think). Obviously, the threshold for nomination is very trivial. Anyway, we don’t need to argue. Obama acknowledges that the award was political and so do I. – Larry W/HB
The winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace BRIBE (er Prize) is…….
I predict he will win one every year he is in office — so 3 more of these type days! All he has
to do is keep trashing our country, continue his membership of the tyrant fraternity,
ignore Honduras’ right to follow their constitution, turn a blind eye to those offering their
lives for a cause of freedom, let the far left agenda blossom and continue his march against
free enterprise and agricultural efforts…(The Gulf Shores are being targeted/discussed for govt
takeover and full control of the fishing industry by the environmental movement)….
He will promote peace as he will have brought our country to it’s knees and we can no longer fight.
MEchelle must have the jets warming up so she can go shopping for another couture
outfit or two or three…for the prize ceremony.
However, I just know that I am dreaming and will wake up from this bizarre dream….any moment now…
Pingback: DNC Warning: If You Joke about Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, You’re a Terrorist… Oops, Unless You’re a Democrat « Frugal Café Blog Zone
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
The change of wording on the Snopes page is irrelevant to the issue that you are incorrect on.
Bush was not nominated in 2001. The Snopes page (new version and old) is clear that there was no evidence to support that claim.
He was supposedly nominated in 2002, which would be well beyond the 11 day time period that you presented.
The original header/title of the page puts forth the idea that Bush was nominated in 2002 and pronounces it as “True”.
I have the entire original Snopes page saved to my desktop because you cannot copy/paste directly. The best I can offer at this moment however is a Google search screenshot showing the old wording of the title:
View at EasyCaptures.com
The quoted portion I put in post #8 is from the original version of the Snopes page.
PS…I’d still like to know which folks on the list you provided had no actual accomplishments at the time their prizes were awarded….but mere good intentions instead.
@Aye (#15)
Look, I discovered the error about 2001 vs 2002 before you did. I’d already posted my correction before you posted your gotcha. Anyway, it’s utterly trivial and not worth the time of either of us. Note, by the way, that there’s no “official” list of nominees –either for 2001 or for 2002. It’s all just unnamed “sources.” – Larry W/HB
Why am I not surprised to see larry here defending “legend in the making” obama?
Larry, his nomination and win is utterly disgusting and clearly a middle finger to the previous president/admin while attempting to influence obama.
A short list of the people passed over:
@Aye Chihuahua:
And which would make sense, coming on the heels of the liberation of Afghanistan, “fighting terrorism and promoting world peace,” toward the end of 2001. Taking decisive action to topple a brutal regime was and remains a significant and bold act of bringing about “hope” and “change”.
Obama says Nobel Peace Prize is “call to action”
InTrade had action with Hu Jia, Morgan Tsvangirai, Thich Quang Do, Ingrid Betancourt, Nicolas Sarkozy, Tony Blair, with Pete Seeger having the most, just behind “Anyone else.”
Obama was listed but had no action as did Michael Jackson and Bono.
@Wordsmith: Has the Nobel Peace prize ever been given to an outside, invading power, fighting a “war of liberation.” As I write this, I don’t know, but I doubt it. As I wrote, giving a Peace Prize for declaring and fighting a war seems a bit oxymoronic. – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Speaking of prizes…someone just sent me a link to the Heisman Trophy Awards Voting…maybe BHO should win this year for possibly watching a collegiate game and staying off of the tv for 3 hours…which would promote peace and quiet.
http://promo.espn.go.com/espn/contests/theheismanvote/2009/
@Wordsmith:
I agree that a nomination for Bush in 2002 would have made perfect sense.
It’s really a shame that Leftists, who are fortunate enough not to live under the cruel boot of tyranny, refuse to recognize the accomplishment of freeing tens of millions of people.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Which of the nominees you posted in #3 had no actual accomplishments at the time their prizes were awarded….but mere good intentions instead?
I’ve asked this several times already but the answer seems to be resisting.
Finally, the “claim” that President Bush was nominated in 2001 is not supported by any evidence, as noted by the Snopes page….yet you posted the claim anyway.
Are you a believer that the moon landing didn’t happen as well? That is, after all, a really popular theory on the Interwebz. In fact, that theory is arguably more popular than the 2001 Nobel Prize claim.
Giving the Peace Prize to someone who has accomplished absolutely nothing….now that right there ladies and gentlemen is oxymoronic, or…maybe just plain moronic.
Someone mentioned the Heisman?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim #21:
Not at all; anymore than anyone can believe that the “peace” movement actually promotes peace. The anti-war movement, when they have their way, bring about more suffering and more violence. They don’t bring peace, because they protest against the wrong side, aligning with communists, dictators, and brutally corrupt regimes.
Has a world leader ever been nominated for the nobel peace prize 12 days into his presidency with a resume of accomplishments as vacuous as the current PotUS has to merit such a “covetous” award?
Rumor just hitting my email is that a White House staffer submitted the nomination…will be interesting to see who indeed did nominate this poseur.
Maybe Larry could defend why Arafat got one. He started a war, too.
Openid.aol.com/runnswim,
You’re soooo right. What these guys are missing is that in order to bring would some end to these on going wars we need to be civil. Idle threats and killing civilians isn’t the way to bring peace in our own country nevertheless the countries that already hate us. What the award commitees are doing is actually listening to what the President is saying, watching what’s he’s doing and obviously not watching Fox “Opinion” News. I actually have a hardtime calling what they do news. They spent more time reporting on some idiot trying to outrun the police in Texas today and talking about what the President. Well I guess in their case that was a good thing.
Just to add to who is known to be on the short list, BBC notes that Norway’s NRK television – apparently with a good track record at guessing the recipient in the past – focused on Zimbabwe’s PM, Morgan Tsvangirai, just the night before.
This, in itself, is somewhat of a black mark on the NPP since Tsvangirai was caught on tape discussing assassination of his opponent in the 2002 Zimbabwe presidential elections. LOL
Yeah… good choice for the peace award.
BTW, Larry… welcome back and congrats to your daughter for her marathon swim. Just wanted to let you know that 205 nominations were offered for the 2009 prize per the Nobel FAQs on their website. 33 of them were organizations.
Also, we have no idea when Obama’s name was put into the hat, nor by whom. Any nominations received/postmarked after Feb 1 from the preceding year can get carried over to the following year. So it’s also entirely possible that Obama’s name was offered up while he was still a candidate, or perhaps while PEBO.
The Nobelprize.org site does have a page to view a general list of those qualified to be nominators but it’s a slow load. I suspect their server is getting bombarded today. I got thru, and here’s the qualifications to nominate an entity or individual.
Considering Obama’s ties to universities and professors of law, social sciences and theology, my guess is his name was offered up by some in the academia. Presumably, this may even qualify Bill Ayers, who teaches at Univ of Chicago with a “social justice” curriculum. Considering his past, the prospect that he may qualify as a Peace Prize nominee is tinged with irony.
We can take that irony further into the bizarre when you consider that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was also a professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary which, according to the above, also qualifies him as a nominator.
@Moving Further To The Left:
If you compare a number of presidential speeches, you’ll find a lot of similarities: Talk of democracy, freedom, human rights, etc.
The difference is, President Bush actually did something other than “dither” and blather.
What did President Obama do to show support for Iranians who protested their election fraud?
How is he on the right side of history, in regards to Honduras? Nice when you have Chavez and Castro patting you on the back and cheering you on, ain’t it?
And CNN? MSNBC?
Please….
Ah yes… it was the civility of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that led to peace for WWII. Thank you for that reminder of history, Left. LOL
Now, I take issue with your comment that the US has dealt in idle threats and killing civilians (assuming you mean intentionally, as collateral damage is a fact in any warfare). I do believe you’re talking about the other guys – the global Islamic jihad movements. It is they who do the killing of civilians… a fact you obviously decide to overlook in order to appease your idolatry of the Big Zero.
And perhaps you’re too young, and history deficient (which is obvious from your above quoted comment), to recognize that the US has always been hated. It was anti-American sentiment post WWII that inspired the best seller, The Ugly American in 1958. You think this stuff just started? What has public education come to…. sigh
Because I contributed, if memory serves, a total of about $75 to his campaign, I seem to be permanently on the Obama email listserve. Here’s the text of the email he just now sent to his supporters:
LW/HB
The O’schpiel is close to… if not identical to… his press conference this AM Larry. I agree with Slate’s Mickey Kaus. He should have thanked them, and declined. His acceptance still highlights his narcissistic nature, his lack of accomplishments and helps him battle his reputation that he is overcelebrated for his actual performance. Believe it or not, I would have given him kudos for that honesty.
Thanks, Larry.
Glad he’s finally acknowledging president Bush’s contributions, here. Just wish he’d publically name and thank him.
God bless the heavy lifters, those serving in our Armed Forces.
Pingback: Barack Is the Champion! Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize… and Everything Else! (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Wordsmith,
I didn’t mention Bush but I am glad that you did. You are absolutely,positively correct. Bush did do something. He ruined our economy, He staged a war in Iraq for reason’s no one really seems to know other than to hunt down and kill the person that wasn’t responsible for 9/11, He and his Vice President left office with the lowest approval ratings in U.S. history. He almost single handedly ruin the Republican party. He and Cheney basically handed the keys to the Whitehouse to President Obama. Would like to for me to continue. Probably not. So if you want to pass judgement on our current President it would probably be wiser to look at your past President.
Thanks to everyone. Happy trails to all, until we meet again.
P.S. I was asked: >>Maybe Larry could defend why Arafat got one. He started a war, too.<<
The Peace prize was given to Arafat + 2 Israelis, mainly to encourage them to keep talking to each other.
@Aye: You win. You’ve proven conclusively that you are the better man. And I’m a tinfoil hat wearing nutcase.
My point was that the Peace Prize is unique among the Nobels, in that it has been used to encourage what the committee views as being meritorious efforts, as opposed to simply being a reward for past achievements. I gave valid examples of this. You object that Obama is an extreme case of this, in that others had at least minimal prior achievement (e.g. climate change panel). I don’t have a quarrel with your point of view on this, but I think that my explanation of the rationale for the award was entirely correct.
Bottom Line, the Committee just BOUGHT another sitting US President.
Wow… what a surprise the same ol’ BS talking points spew forth… /sarc
Then of course, there’s that telling comment:
More hypocritical horse manure from the those who believe themselves to be morally superior. Let’s get this straight, Left… if you want to lecture us by calling the Big Zero “our” POTUS (assuming the power to speak for us), then you shouldn’t be revealing your own unmitigated disrespect for the electoral system and Oval Office by disassociating yourself from prior administrations.
G-D fair weather Americans… if you’re insane enough to call tripling to quadrupling the national debt in nine months (as opposed to doubling it in eight years) “fair weather”.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been cheapened beyond belief by this award, it already meant very little, after having been awarded to the likes of Jimmy Carter and Yassar Arafat, but today took the cake…
@Mata. What’s a relevant comparison is not absolute magnitude of debt, but rather debt:GDP ratio. Don’t forget that 700+ billion (the Wall Street bailout) was a Bush administration initiative. This is roughly equal in magnitude to the ‘stimulus” itself. And also don’t forget that the fiscal 2009 budget was basically the Bush administration budget. Of the debt which has accrued thus far, most of the new debt is attributable to Bush (Wall Street bailout + fiscal ’09 budget). Only 40% of the “stimulus” has yet been spent.
Prediction: I see the economy coming back strong over the next 3 quarters. I also see health care being passed. I also see the election prospects for 2010 being quite a bit different from what is being currently forecast, although I plan on continuing to vote for my local GOP congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, because I’m a firm “believer” in divided governance.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
The socialists, with their loss in Germany and Obama’s loss at the IOC, were (via their Nobel Prize Socialist Branch) suddenly willing to have their ulterior motives run naked through the streets to crown Obama lest he fall even further. The Nobel mole is no more in stealth mode; now we know that they are willing to do anything, even if it means exposing who they really are.
Unfortunately for the Nobel folks, 12 days would be called to question even by a stooge. But guess what, even at 9 months, Obama has done NOTHING of any significance. But soon he will, for the sake of his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama will order more WAR on Afghanistan — else he will be seen as a quitter, a failure, a REAL LOSER. Peace be with you, Obama.
We are aware of the cynical manipulations of bringing the “stimulus” to bear prior to the 2010 elections. We expected this; not naive. I doubt whether any of us who have been hurt by the economic dive will forgive and forget. If you believe we have short memories, dream on.
What I will be thinking of is Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed suggesting that Sharia law is “misunderstood” and that a majority of the women of the world like and adhere to it.
What I will be remembering is the theft of the caucuses during the primary by ACORN thugs for Obama.
What I won’t forget are the bailed out banks, given plenty of time to gear up for the change in credit rules, now sending me notices that come January this excellent customer will be subjected to a “change in rates” in February. 2010? I can’t wait. And no absentee ballot this time. I’ll be there personally to vote these crooks out of office.
You mean *this* debt/GDP ratio, Larry? The one that continues to shoot straight up under Obama… not even including his cap/trade, health care and ARRA stimulus spending??
See larger version here.
Allow me to correct you on your “40%” of stimulus money being spent. I have no idea where you get that notion when even Christine Romer admits in August that only $100 bill would be spent by the second quarter. Even that is a dubious fact that, for some reason with Mr. Transparency, is difficult to prove.’
Now, unless you are graduated from the same math classes as Obama, I can’t see $100 bil as anywhere close (even if we assume that is accurate) to 40% of $787 billion.
A few more corrections INRE:
That would be the Dem Congress budget, Larry. Last I looked, only Congress can appropriate… not the President. Bush can be held responsible for not using his veto pen often enough, and with that I can fully agree. However it’s still a drop in the bucket.
And let’s not forget that less than half of the TARP cash last fall was spent by Bush’s money god, Henry Paulson. So you can take the other half+ and attribute that to Obama’s spending. He could, after all, have put it back in the coffers. He and Geithner did not. That spending onus goes into the Obama/Congress column.. not the Bush/Congress column.
Notice what they both have in common? Then take a very solid look at the debt/GDP graph. When did spending start to skyrocket? Coincidently about the same time the Dems seized both chambers of Congress, and control of the purse strings.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Credit/Blame Bush for Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Bookworm Room » Obama wins the Peace Prize *UPDATED — FREQUENTLY*
@Mata: Again, W Bush is responsible for the lion’s share of the increase to date. That’s what your graph shows (in the context of my comments in #40). I acknowledge that Obama supported the W Bush Wall Street bailout. You also must acknowledge that the GOP, had McCain been elected, would have offered a stimulus of at least 60% of the size of the Obama stimulus, so we really have only about $300 billion in extra debt attributable to Obama over that which would have been generated under continued GOP governance. This is practically a rounding error, and the stimulus wasn’t Obama’s personal idea but was the idea of a team of very highly qualified (albeit Keynesian) economists. We’ll all get the chance to determine, down the road, if this extra $300 billion was money well spent.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I was finishing off the above comment when you were posting, Larry. (had to battle getting that graph to fit…).
Please revisit and you will find my comments about Bush/Congress vs Obama/Congress. And I shall wait for you to comment on that line going vertical when the Dems seized control of House and Senate in 2007.
Remember, you will not convince me that the POTUS has Congressional budgetary and appropriation power. They can only say no. However as spendy as the GOP Congress was, the Dem Congress make the GOP look like Ebenezer Scrooge… and all in a couple years.
Mata, there was no spike in federal spending when the Dems assumed control of congress. Debt is a function of spending vs revenue and the latter took a nose dive when the economy tanked.
With regard to who is responsible for the spending which did occur:
The President (or Executive Branch) prepares the Federal Budget. Congress amends and approves it. 2/3 is non-discretionary spending. I don’t have the data about how much the final budget passed by Congress exceeded that presented originally by the President. I strongly doubt that the final amount which Congress approved significantly exceeded that which the President proposed. I do know that the 2009 fiscal budget passed by Congress was almost precisely that proposed by the W Bush executive branch.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
We Are Being Setup … Obama “Wining” the Nobel Peace Prize
At the very least Obama is a useful idiot with a massive ego. This will only feed into his delusion that he can bring “World Peace”. I am sure Russia/Iran & China were behind this. They are setting up America for Appeasement via Obama which will lead to Nuclear Mushroom clouds over NYC. May God help us!!
Our Nuclear Arsenal Is Essential to our Survival!!!
America’s nuclear arsenal & a President willing to use it have prevented a land war with Russia & China. Also our nuclear arsenal is a counterbalance to Eurasia’s “Massive” man power advantage. Oh, Russia/Iran & China are laughing right now.
–State Dept. spokesperson
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Very funny Larry. From October 2008 until January 2009 President Bush was only responsible for continuing resolutions to keep the government running because the democrats running the House refused to submit a budget for him to sign.
PurseStrings Pelosi made the decision to hold up the budget until after the election because Bush was going to veto it. What Bush was not responsible for was $410 billion that included and 8% across the board increase and a ton of earmarks that Anti-earmark Obama signed, in his office without his customary fanfare.
President Bush spent $267 billion on TARP and decided it was enough. President elect Obama requested the remainder of the money in a letter to Congress January 12 to be ready for him on day 1.
So, you can shave quite a bit of the late 2008 TARP/Fiscal 2009 budget off the Bush record.
http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/01/13/obama-tarp/
To the best of my knowledge, the W Bush Federal Budget was 2.97 trillion. The final budget passed was 3.1 trillion. This is a difference of $103 billion. This is trivial.
With regard to whether or not the whole $700 billion authorized under W Bush would have been released to Wall Street: this is entirely conjectural.
Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Let’s examine larry’s past predictions, shall we?
Obama will pick moderates–WRONG
Obama will govern from the center–Even more WRONG
Those are just two big ones he got wrong that I recall off the top of my head.
Anyone else want to bet he’s wrong about the economy and the 2010 elections? I’d say it was a sucker bet considering who made the claims.
He may be right about health care destruction being passed as the dems are determined to ride that missile into the ground no mater what.
Larry, I remained on the same debt/GDP ratio you did when referring to the spike in the graph, commencing over a year earlier than the economy tanked a mere month or two prior to the 2008 Presidential election. So that revenue to debt under the Dems… in charge of the budgets and purse strings since 2007… gets an official pass from you? I see.
It’s also interesting that you decide to place the power of Congress to appropriate in the hands of the Oval Office merely because the WH writes a budget. When it comes to military command and foreign policy, the buck stops at the Oval Office. When it comes to spending, the buck stops at Congress. For all the whining of Pelosi/Reid since 2007 about spending, it was always in their power to reign it in. They did not, despite revenues falling, they still spent.
And you can’t blame $5 bill annually on the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, nor the fractional defense budget either. As you can see by the below chart for the Obama/Dem Congress budget, ( larger version here), defense spending is pretty far down on the totem pole for total spending. As a matter of fact, when you look at this chart, you can see how far we have strayed from the Constitutional powers of federal authority. Homeland Security, defense, treasury, justice…. all the bottom of the barrel compared to entitlement programs and the EPA, fer heavens sake.
There’s another graph below that with the O’math fallacy of reducing the deficit. The problem is, and always was, with O’math is that he assumes he is inheriting the decades of growth prior to his coronation. The fact is quite the opposite. Our earning capacity is going down, our taxes are going up, and the revenue he anticipates is going to fall quite short of the mark.
But again, time will be the proof in the pudding for you hardcare O’faithful out there.
Your “predictions” are a pretty dream. You totally bypass the effect of Bernanke’s exit from propping up the economy, which sends the interest rates up.. which tanks the housing industry and gives us a new ration of foreclosures and short sales. All of us are sitting on a toxic mortgage after rates rise… even if you are still ahead of the game now. By the way, via Bernanke’s talk last night and most speculation of economists today, they are guessing the beginning of 2010. Just Bernanke opening his mouth about rate increases helped the dollar value, and resulted in mortgage rates going thru three increases today.
Add the tanking of the commercial real estate coming up… with over a trillion coming due in 2010 of commercial notes. Then there’s the new mortgage failure on the horizon, FHA and GNMA.
Put together extended and rising unemployment over the 12-18 months, increasing rates, mortgages that are still toxic and added to them, increased taxes, and out of control Obama/Congress spending, and frankly your predictions resemble one heck of a Disney/Pixar animation movie. You oughta register that screenplay with the WGA.
My predictions? I suggest everyone batten down on the finances for the next 5-10 years, and cut down your overhead to managable levels because we’ve got a rocky ride in front of us. The attempts to “save the homeowner” and the foreclosure moratorium did nothing more than delay the inevitable. Then it may be more difficult because the delayed assets will pile on to the new foreclosure/short sale assets. It’s this simple… there is no economic recovery without a housing recovery. And right now housing is propped up by the feds right along with the banks.
Eventually we will have to pay the piper. And the longer we try to stave off that moment, the longer it’s going to take to recover.
Your posts are excellent Mata, but I fear you are wasting your time. Larry won’t even admit he was wrong about obama’s picks or governing like a moderate. Logic is not a factor in his support of obama.
When someone tries to tell you that a 1 trillion deficit created by dems and signed by a dem president aren’t to blame, they aren’t being rational.
dang… wish I’d said that. Woulda saved a boatload of typing! LOL
Pingback: Random Thoughts » And we remain the losers
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/okdw.jpg
With respect to Obama governing as a moderate, it depends on one’s perspective.
I consider myself to be a moderate. I’m against gay marriage. I’m for 2nd amendment rights. I agree that McCain-Feingold is an assault on Free Speech. I was against both the Wall Street bailout and the “stimulus.” I am more conservative on economic policy than any of you. I believe in a balanced budget. I believe that the ONLY way to get a balanced budget is to INCREASE taxes to pay for 100% of what government spends — from welfare to war. You make people pay — in REAL TIME — and you’ll achieve what you really want to achieve — which is to tame the beast. I “believe” in the concept that the only war worth fighting is the war that everyone agrees is worth fighting. World War II was worth fighting. Every single war since World War II was not worth fighting. Save the Cold War. Declared by Truman. Containment works. It’s what we should have done with both Iraq and Afghanistan. An adolescent from Washington state shook hands with Bin Laden. A professional CIA agent could have killed Bin Laden. I think that the Soledad Cross should be left uncovered. I think the Mojave Desert Cross should be uncovered. I applaud the appointment of Roberts and Alito as being outstanding (I think that Sotomayor was also outstanding; I think that Clarence Thomas was a disgrace. I think that Bork would have been outstanding.). I consistently vote for GOP congresspeople, when there are Democratic Presidents. I could go on and on, but you get my drift. By real world standards, I’m a moderate. By Flopping Aces standards, I’m a communist.
Hard core liberals are almost as angry with Obama as hard core conservatives.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
No, it DOES NOT depend on one’s perspective. Reality is not subjective so don’t try that with me. Obama has chosen radical leftists for many positions, especially Czar positions.
His economic and social policies are straight from the hardcore socialist and even marxist handbook. That is not moderate unless your definition of moderate is stalin, hitler, or pol pot.
It’s no accident when you see who he chose to associate and work with. He is a devout leftist.
Last I checked Larry, being fiscally Conservative meant cutting govt. spending AND taxes.
Everyone couldn’t agree that WWII was worth fighting. That is an unrealistic standard and I’m not surprised you stand by that.
Please define what you mean by containment? Because our efforts to “contain” Iraq were failing badly. Or have you forgot the “food”-for oil scandal? Or hussein’s terrorist links…including the agents we arrested inside the U.S.?
Afghanistan? Contain them? We saw what happened when a terrorist regime was in charge. We should leave them intact so they can export terror elsewhere? Not to mention containing Afghanistan is hardly as simple as you make it sound.
Sotomayer was a good pick? Riiiiight. Thomas a disgrace? Ummm, yeaaahhhhh. Whatever.
Larry, I might take your claims about being a “true Conservative” fiscally a little more seriously IF you didn’t excuse MASSIVE dem spending and cheer the govt. takeover of industries (or perhaps one in particular).
When it comes to the word Conservative, I don’t think it means what you think it means.
I agree with most of what you said, Larry… save this:
Here I side with Hard Right. You say “you make people pay – in REAL TIME”. I’m confused as to why the taxpayer should pay for Congressional irresponsibility. Your analogy is akin to the Mom and Dad just increasing the credit limit on their spoiled kid’s Bloomingdale’s card instead of cutting the credit limit for her to spend.
We should be forcing Congress to tighten their belts and knock off the welfare crap. Let us handle our cash and take responsibility for mishandling it. History has proven over and over that when you leave the cash in the earner’s pocket, most invest and create more wealth… which translates to more revenue despite the lower tax rates.
Let me first state that I think that President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize was odd in that there seems to be little accomplishment on his part up to this point to support a nomination, much less the award. But does anyone else agree with Bill O’reilly in that Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is good for America on the global stage? Is anyone at least proud that our president is being recognized and therefore we too are being recognized worldwide for advocation of Peace?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim #36:
I think your rationale was reasonable. Of course, I still think the whole nobel thing is a joke and a sham.
@Moving Further To The Left #35:
Sorry. What this reveals is your own ignorance and lack of research on the topic. I suggest you dig through the FA archives. Then get back to us.
So? Get back to me in 50 years. I believe Bush will go the route of Truman and be regarded much more fairly by historians tomorrow than by the partisanship and distortion of the record that we get today. The distance of history will also see how Iraq and Afghanistan play out.
Obama’s almost single-handedly rejuvenating a GOP revival; but he’s getting stiff competition from Pelosi and Reid.
Uh…yeah. New around here? You have me trembling from the pillow fight beating you just gave me. Please. Stop. No more.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim #57:
Does that include the Korean War? Vietnam? Supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan? And all the other military and CIA intevention around the world? These were all part of the Cold War.
As far as wars “everyone agrees on”, I’m with Hard right. All wars are a matter of opinion as to whether they are necessary wars or not.
You might find the following arguments interesting, if not convincing:
Peter Feaver:
Michael Barone:
You don’t approve of the Iraq War. I get that. But once we are involved, all American wars become a war of necessity to win.
After reading Scott’s book, “Iraq’s Smoking Gun“, I think if any regime was beyond redemption and diplomacy that had been tried and failed, it was Saddam’s Iraq. What other nation ever goes to the UN for approval, anyway, other than the U.S.? We sought and obtained a minilateralism coalition of willing partners to remove Saddam. The ones who opposed us were nations with money self-interests invested in the survival of Saddam’s regime. They were not opposed to the overthrow of Saddam based upon any altruistic desires for peace and stability in the world. They were enablers of a brutal dictator and enemy of the United States who was also one of the worst state sponsors of exported terrorism.
Were Saddam around today, the world would be an even more dangerous place to live in. And the longer we put off the “necessary” war, the costlier, down the road.
As Hard Right alludes, containment wasn’t working in regards to Saddam.
As Randall Hoven asks,
Cheaper to have finished the job in ’91; expensive to do it in 2003; costlier still, had we waited until there is a smoking gun [which means the firearm's already been discharged]. Which is cheaper: Prevention or treatment?
My opinion, of course.
And when you speak of “moderates”, President Obama is only moderate in how he’s successfully presented himself before the American public. It’s in image only. Nothing moderate about his ideology beneath the surface. Where in his educational history has he ever gravitated toward studying ideology that is not coming from leftwing radicals?
You know who was a moderate, though? President Bush. Center-right. Yet self-described conservative-moderate Larry rejects him. Go figure that one out.
@Poster Child:
I wish I could say “yes”. But I can’t help but feel in light of the fact which you point out- his list of nonaccomplishments as warrant for the award- makes this simply an embarrassment.
Bookworm’s Update X:
I think his acceptance speech was fine. And I don’t fault the president for the win. The fault lies with those who decided to nominate and award him. But it speaks to the vacuity of the nobel committee; and validates the criticism that Obama is a lot of hype, driven by a cult of personality and near religiosity.
I really don’t think this enhances our global standing. I think others around the world (just look at some of the media reports) share the befuddlement at the decision to crown Obama peace laureate.
As much as I deride such things as his speech to the Muslim world, however….at least with something like that, I will admit that people’s misguided perceptions about him might achieve positive results. It’s all in the packaging and image sell. I don’t care if America is loved by other countries (countries who don’t have America’s best interests at heart) or not; except insofar as how such feelings may lead to better cooperation and improvements in international relations. I reject the notion though, that Bush is at fault for supposedly alienating and harming America’s standing in the world. I think it’s a load of crock and much to do with bad PR than anything negative that he’s actually done. “Cowboy diplomacy” is just the image he’s been stigmatized with, for good and bad.
Re: #60 Poster Child:
O Reilly went completely off the rails tonight. Laura was just about to walk off the show after he said that the prize was good for America on the Global Stage. I damn near broke my TV after hearing that. It’s good to be a second rate country, on a par with the European cowards? I think not. Awards for doing NOTHING are shallow at best and this was an embarrassment for both the U.S. and Zero.
Proud to be recognized for WHAT?? Exactly WHAT is it that he’s done? Oh, “recognized for advocation of peace”? No thanks. Peace is attained through the application of overwhelming force. I’d rather we were recognized as the nation that YOU DO NOT WANT TO FUCK WITH. PERIOD.
And as far as Zero being “recognized”……How in Hell can he NOT be recognized? You can’t turn on a television without seeing his jug-eared face on it.
The Nobel Committee is just as corrupt as this government is. AlGore over Irena Sendler?
PLEASE………..
Here’s your Nobel Committee at work
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/break.jpg
All,
I don’t think President Obama deserved to be nominated much less win it all. I think the dopes in Oslo have no bloody clue what Alfred Nobel’s original intent was. It is a joke that President Obama wins it for being all-eloquence-no-execution.
Give Larry a break. He did not say that Obama deserved the award. He merely mentioned that Nobel is sometimes awarded to people/groups to encourage them towards their stated goal. He also acknowledged that some of the previous winners haven’t gone onto accomplish all they had set out to. Larry does not sound like the typical lunatic from the left. He has been much too civilized (to be a liberal lunatic) through out this long discussion even when he was attacked unfairly (by Aye).
You should have seen one of the posters on Seattle Post Intelligencer’s website. All day, he has been telling all of us (who did not think President Obama deserved the award) that we were on the same side as Taliban and Al-Qaida and hence belonged in Gitmo. The idiot posted 30/40 times today and had said the same two or three sentences (mixing in a reference here and there to 9/11, USS Cole bombing and Embassy bombings in Africa etal). Now that is who I would call a lunatic from the left. This darned city that I live in (Seattle) is so full of them.
I don’t agree that you belong in Gitmo, but your Conservative Leader, the man to whom no elected Conservative will speak poorly of without having to bow and scrape for forgiveness, the “all knowing and all seeing” Conservative leader who is right 99.89% of the time and has his talent directly connected to and on loan from God (so you know he has moral authority as well as “wisdom”) has thrown his lot in with the Taliban on this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZXfloQqDHs
So, you must now adjust your talking points and defend Almighty Rush, who now sees the Taliban as an ally against Barack Hussein Obama..Mmmmmmm Mmmmmm MMmmm
No way Conservatives will go on record opposing Rush, so this will go from a Lefty talking point that is stupid and condemned by Conservatives to one that Rush supports and is defended by Conservatives I predict. If Rush says turn on a dime, Conservative masses will comply without a whimper.
Any serious Conservative who knows what is good for the country, his party and his own good standing with American voters would not scumbag Obama for winning the Peace Prize, but congratulate him, and there appears to be only two so far: John McCain, and Tim Pawlenty:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mn-obama-nobel-pawle,0,1210860.story
I wonder if Rush will scumbag Pawlenty and if he does, will Pawlenty call into Rush’s show and say he is sorry?
I see moose poo has decided to take blasted’s role as troll.
C’mon, guys! President Obama IS a peace maker! He really DID a great deed in the name of peaceful relations between peoples! The Nobel prize committee surely saw the magnificent peace-maker in action when he ACTUALLY brought Harvard Professor “skippy” Gates and Cambridge Police officer Crowley together for a BEER! No less on the White House lawn in fact! A greater act of peacemaking has never been accomplished in the history of humankind! Nobody is more deserving of the Nobel Peace prize than our very own Uber Messiah! When everyone world-wide now has a beer, they can propose a toast and hold up their mugs and say,”Heil OBAMA! the peacemaker”
@mooseburger:
Glad you cleared that up. Reading through sOP’s post immediately reminded me of your earlier comments, now I can be assured that you weren’t the one posting over at Seattle Post Intelligencer.
Oh, and interesting that you included MMmmmm, MMmmmm, MMmmmm in your rant against Rush Limbaugh and conservatives who listen to him. Just mind numbing isn’t it. The impression I get from this second bitter post of yours is that you buy into the mind numbed robot thing, rest assured it’s not the case. But, including the mmm, mmm, mmm,— now, that was due to educational systems in our country–post Obama— indoctrinating very young children, several more have been exposed since. Perhaps your concerns are misplaced.
Having posted exclusively on conservative boards, let me tell you that even though conservatives listen, they don’t always agree with Rush, they don’t always agree with Malkin, Coulter, Hannity, etc. and a host of other conservative talking heads. Funny bunch they can be.
Now, with your hang up over the taliban agreeing with conservatives, I’ve read that liberals were more offended than conservatives, they view it as a threat to an institution they want to believe in in a dire sort of way. So, are liberals……taliban lite because of their opinion, or equal to Rush types of conservatives?
BTW, you do know that Syria cheered the award. IMHO, I don’t think the cheering was as much for the award as it was for Obama signing off on a Bush policy that sanctioned Syria for the Hirari assasination and providing support for attacks on Israel, but, that’s just me. Now Europe is free to pump over $7 billion into Syria’s economy, what’s not to like.
Missy: The MMmmm MMmmm MMmmmm thing was just for laughs, it is probably not funny when Kids do it in school, but to watch and hear Rush do it cracks me up, so it was meant as humor.
I realize that normal Conservatives have different opinions, and believe it or not, I agree with many of them. My point was that ELECTED Conservatives dare not cross Rush, lest they get a zillion phone calls and a Primary challenge come election time, so they have to either agree or remain silent, unless they want Rush beatin’ them up on his show.
As for the Taliban thing, I posted a comment about that yesterday morning, and was referred to as a shill for the Liberal DNC. Then when Rush came out and said the Taliban and himself were in agreement on Obama getting the peace prize, exactly what I had said, it struck me as a Twilight Zone type of thing. I still don’t believe any elected Conservative will call Rush out on that.
As the comment about posting bitter posts here, I have tried to be civil and respectful initially upon coming here, only to have many trash me out and accuse me of many unsavory things, at some point I realized I might as well give as good as I get it here, if folks can dish it out, then they should be able to take it. But thank you for your civil and reasoned reply, a breath of fresh air to disagree without demeaning the other folks you may disagree with.
As for some Liberals, some of them are out to lunch, just like some on the far right, most people don’t live on the far edge extreme, so I can’t speak for or justify other folks nutty behavior, I can barely justify my own sometimes.
@sickOfPartisanship:
Larry was “attacked unfairly” by moi?
Really?
Show me please.
I’ve reviewed the back and forth and found nothing in there is even remotely unfair.
Larry posted a claim. I asked for the factual backing.
Larry posted a falsehood and I called him out on it.
What’s unfair about that?
I eagerly await your efforts toward enlightening me.
@mooseburger:
I rarely listen to Rush, we have XM in our home so the only time I hear him is while traveling, then it’s cross word puzzle time, focus is not on a lot of what he says. But in the past I remember him being very critical of conservatives in Congress who he considered weak, do we know if his comments did anything to prevent their re-election? I”m doubting his power is massive enough to instigate a primary challenge. What we’ve seen in the past two elections is the power of the main stream media and left-wing blogs. You may have noticed who is controlling Congress in spite of Limbaugh’s program.
I don’t think the majority of Congressional conservatives pay much attention to his daily program, hopefully because they are working. If they did speak out, letters from constituents most likey would be answered with one of the maddening form letters. Calls? “I’ll let the Senator/Congressman know.” But, would that be enough for those voters to stay home or vote for a left-wing candidate or a third party candidate? During the three years I was campaign coordinator for my Congressman, he never made reference to him, he definately did not have time to listen, some probably do, some probably agree, they aren’t all carbon copies.
The left has MoveOn, Maddow, Matthews, Olbermann, Shultz, Randi Rhodes(bullet in Bush head segment) etc. and Michael Moore— terrorists are minute men and…..Farenheit 911. That opening was well attended by prominant democrats, MM was also gifted with a seat next to Carter at the 04 convention. Then the vicious attacks on, Petraeous, President Bush the Nazi, Sarah and baby Trigg Palin’s whole family and the racist attacks on Michael Steele, Justice Thomas and Condi Rice immediately come to mind. Repudiation?
Instead of dem leaders repudiating MoveOn, they speak at their convention and have their own pages at that site. The rest mentioned above are also ignored by their members of Congress.
Ouch:
The Nobel Peace Prize Is Over
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/09/the-nobel-peace-prize-is-over.aspx
@ Mata
I’ve check myself for a fever three times and I’ve scheduled an appointment with my doc. I actually agree with Larry on this. You left out the part where Larry said:
If congress proposed a bill to increase welfare spending and immediately had to inform the public that this would result in an across the board tax increase of 3%, that would be real-time. There have been many conservatives promote this idea, and I think it is a great idea. It moves to Larry’s point that this would “achieve what you really want to achieve — which is to tame the beast.” The public would revolt. Congress would have no choice except to pay for their programs by cuts in other areas or abandon the increase in spending altogether.
OK, I’m going to get a cold compress and lie down now.
Caught in sweet home spamabama.
@Aye (#70):
Let’s look at this claim in detail:
I posted a link to a Snopes story about the GW Bush Nobel nomination. I initially misread the linked article. It said that Bush got his nomination 11 days after his inauguration. But Snopes couldn’t confirm this and said that there was stronger evidence (albeit from anonymous sources) that Bush received a nomination in 2002, which, of course, was more than a year after his inauguration. I MYSELF caught my mistake and edited/changed my comment within about 5 minutes of the time I initially posted it. I made this correction BEFORE a “gotcha” post, by Aye, pointing out my error. This can probably be confirmed by those who have access to the inner workings of the FA host server.
I explained this previously. In spite of this, Aye is now stating — not simply that I made an honest mistake, which I immediately corrected — that I “posted a falsehood,” which is only a slightly more polite way of stating that I lied, which is an utterly outrageous charge against me which he’s made in the past. It’s frankly disgusting abuse of language.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
My response to Aye’s #70 went to spam.
P.S. @aqua #73: Thanks for adding the explanation/clarification. I’d also like to add that the principle also applies to declarations and support of wars. When Lyndon Johnson escalated the Vietnam War, he raised taxes to pay for it. This certainly contributed to the turning of public opinion against the war. In contrast, President Bush declared war in Iraq and simultaneously reduced our taxes. Had our taxes gone up, more of us would have paid attention much earlier. One definition of a war worth fighting is a war worth a tax increase to pay for it.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Aye (#70),
I was referring to you insistently calling on Larry to prove his ‘falsehood’. I will let Larry comment on that (which he did). I was slightly taken aback by aggressive tone on your part. I was merely stating that Larry was civilized and polite and hence did not deserve such treatment. Once again, it is my perception. Feel free to ridicule me for it. I, along with a ton of others, had spent an entire day (yesterday) dealing with lunatics (one in particular) on Seattle PI’s website.
About the other statement by Larry, that sometimes Nobel is handed out to encourage people with their stated lofty goals, his statement sounded subjective to me. But then the entire Peace Prize is highly subjective. We can not expect him to explain himself anymore than we can expect the Committee to explain their final decision.
Like I said, I don’t think President Obama did not deserve it. I took solace from the fact that Gandhi never won it while Arafat won. I thought giving it to Gore and Carter was ridiculous too…in their cases, they at least did something…even if I didn’t think their deeds deserved such a prestigious award.
SOP, Larry blatantly justifies why obama won the award. He was nominated 12 days in and HAS SINCE ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING.
Did you mistype?
Do you think wishful thinking is a good reason to win it? Seriously, I want to understand what you intended to say.
I also notice you are unfamilliar with larry’s hyper-partisan support of obama.
Here’s a little backround. Early on, Larry insisted that obama would pick moderates for his govt. and govern from the center. It’s not even debateable that he was wrong. Yet he cannot and will not admit he was wrong. Not long ago he even stated that we may be watching the creation of a legend before our very eyes. Larry meant that he would be a positive legend instead of the legendarilly BAD president he will likely be.
And Larry, tying war policy to taxes tells me that your real reason is not to prevent “unecessary wars”, but to stop war period. Hardly a realistic or smart way to go. Rather Ron Paulian. No I don’t like that phony either.
@Hard Right,
It was a typo. I meant to say “I don’t think President Obama deserved it”. Sorry about the confusion. I have only recently started posting here. I do not know much about what Larry posts elsewhere on this site. My comments were strictly based on his posts in this thread.
Aqua, as usual you always give me a grin.
I did leave out the rest of Larry’s sentence since I didn’t take the “tame the beast” analogy the same way you did. So let me say that – since we’re both making appointments for fevers induced by close cyber contact with the O’infected (just kiddin’… sorta… Larry) – together you and Larry complete a thought.
I will, however, take exception to that combined thought on methods of “taming the beast”. I can only say this is analogous to addressing terrorism as law enforcement (post dastardly deed) to doing preventative maintenance (pre’emption).
Yes… let Congress spend enough for a notable (3% is a low that would never happen…) tax increase across the board and you will have public mutiny.
ADDED: But wait… isn’t that what the “crazy” people in the tea party are protesting??? snark…
But try and undo a tax increase with our Congress. Can you say “too little, too late”? They portray them as radical crazy uncaring racists (witness the tea party reception, i.e.) and carry on with biz as usual.
Good idea, both of you… but impractical in practice.
SickofPartisanship: First let me say welcome. You are, like most everyone, a mixture of the left and right, Dem and Republican, conservative and liberal. Your voice, as far as I’m concerned, is appreciated. And your siding with Larry is not unusual as a lot of us – Obama and Larry’s faith in his potential aside – find common ground in the fiscal basics. I think, when it comes to forum battles with Larry, it has to do with speculation and predictions. Larry thinks Obama will take us where all of us want to go (health care aside, on that one… Larry is “Mr. France” on that topic). Many of us disagree. On that aspect, we can only wait out Father Time.
But just a note to you. Larry’s a big boy, and handles what he deems important well on this forum. Many of us go head to head with Larry. And I dare say all of us admire Larry’s genuine quest in life, which is “curing cancer”…. literally.
Just a suggestion to you… let Larry speak up for himself when he’s annoyed. He’s gracious, eloquent, and when he needs someone on the forum to “have his back”, he will speak up. Otherwise your concern for him is admirable, but highly unnecessary. We all have a history here. And we are still blessed with his presence, commentary, and medical insight… even when we disagree.
I only say this to you: get past the “play nice” admonitions to everyone, and get to the nitty gritty for your own bad self. Okay?
Hard Right, what it will take for Larry to “admit” error in judgment is time that has not passed sufficiently. I’d say look for mea culpas anywhere for 18 to 26 months from now. By then what Obama has wrought will potentially be visable on the market and economic conditions. Other than that, we… like economists… are predicting the effect of policy several years out. Larry is as convinced I am wrong in my predictions as I am he is wrong in his. However until time passes, all we have is history as a guide. It’s not on Larry’s side, but then every moment in time is unique.
I suspect Larry… in the position he is… is quite man enough to cop to mea culpas as deserved. And INRE the “appoint moderates”… I guess that comes down to what one considers “moderate”.
And on that note, here’s my comment to you, Larry. You want to say you are “more conservative” or “as conservative” as some of us here on FA. But then you can’t claim that, and assume that Obama’s appointments are “moderate”… using our supposed common conservative guidelines as a measure.
So perhaps you’d like to weigh in on the Obama czar party, and let us know how “moderate” or “conservative” you think any of them are, yes?
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » So who else was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?
@MataHarley:
“I only say this to you: get past the “play nice” admonitions to everyone, and get to the nitty gritty for your own bad self. Okay?”
Coming from one of the authors of this website…I really feel ‘welcome’ around here now.
Ms Missy… admirable you’d deal with Moosemeat on Rush Limbaugh. But anyone one foolish enough to bite on the liberal talking point that Rush is the “head” of the Republican party doesn’t deserve that much attention.
Rush is another conservative public voice. He’s no more a “head” of anything than Michael Moore is over the liberal party. He speaks. People listen (a LOT of them) and then form their own opinion. You do not have to take prozac to listen to Rush… unlike Air America or Olbermann.
Moose? Lay off the pharmaceuticals. It’s showing lately, guy. You used to have a better grip.
Don’t know you, SOP… was that sarcasm? Or real?
I suspect that the Nobel Peace prize was given to Obama to send a message… to whom and for what purpose, who knows
So Larry considers himself a moderate, along with the Messiah, and he claims that the hard core liberals are as angry with Obama as hard core conservatives. As far as I can tell, the right dislikes Obama for the promises he makes. The left dislike him for the promises he breaks. Does that make him a moderate? I don’t think so.
This decision by the Nobel Foundation exposes them as nothing more than just another political front for the international progressive movement. They have lost all credibility.
Then again, maybe Blogojevich and the Chicago political machine twisted some viking arms and made a few payoffs in Oslo.
MataHarley,
I was trying to be sarcastic. I am too thick skinned to be offended easily. Being a moderate in Seattle does that to you.
@wisdom
“maybe Blogojevich and the Chicago political machine twisted some viking arms and made a few payoffs in Oslo”
—–
You may be on to something….their thinking to buy BHO 4 more years in the White House??
Mayor Daley seemed to become very active in ‘promoting’ Obama in careers outside of Chicago once BHO announced, years ago, he wanted to be mayor of Chicago someday…..
Ok SOP, that’s why I asked. It didn’t sound quite right.
Also, I recounted Larry’s psycohphantic defense of obama to give you some perspective.
Mata, I must agree to disagree on the moderate issue. While I see you are giving Larry the benefit of the doubt, it’s pretty clear that obama is not governing from the center and his picks are from the far left. It is most certainly decided. It’s just more denial on the part of the obama worshippers.
Check this out: http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/obama-wins-everything
I know that most readers here are not particularly fond of the New York Times or of Thomas Friedman, but his op-ed column today does reflect at least some of the sentiments expressed on this thread by Wordsmith:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11friedman.html?em
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Friedman’s wish won’t be granted. The speech doesn’t have enough “I”s and “my”s. It doesn’t have even a single reference to MEchelle (as in “I and MEchelle would like to…”). It doesn’t blame Bush nor does it apologize on behalf of America.
@moosehole:
Struck a nerve, eh? That’s good to know.
You and I both know that you’re not capable of creating a comparison between the Taliban and the RNC on this issue on your own.
Furthermore, the time line on the commentary gives you away and points firmly in the direction of regurgitation.
The DNC released their statement prior to 10:24am EST as reflected in this post on the Politico:
Your response:
Coincidence? No, I don’t think so.
You had nearly two hours in which to fully ingest what was being fed to you and then splatter it onto the pages here.
Aye said: You and I both know that you’re not capable of creating a comparison between the Taliban and the RNC on this issue on your own.
Whatever dude, when political back and forth devolves into what people are or are not capable of…..I think that is territory that you can have for yourself if that is the method you employ to score “points” in a discussion and is the best argument you can present. It probably makes you feel better to win a few battles that way, since Republicans, having lost control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, have already lost the war. So now, not only the majority of American voters last November, but polling across Europe shows that we, and they as well do like this President:
http://news.aol.com/article/barack-obamas-nobel-peace-prize-reflects/711836
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/support-still-high-obama-in-europe-2983586
It was not a hard leap to make, and hardly worth arguing about who in fact had an original thought. There is little argument however, that not only this country, but most of the world gives a thumbs up to Obama, and a thumbs down to Bush, including if you recall, the Republican Party of the 2008 campaign season.
As for striking a nerve, not really, only a strange and weird thing to see Rush and the DNC on the same page by the end of the day, and Rush further proves the truth of my posting you quoted me on. Rush isn’t ashamed of agreeing with the Taliban regarding Obama, are you?
@Hard Right:
Ah yes, his picks:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ship_of_fools_obamas_intimates.html
Oops, in the filter. P&T
Gee, it seems if you inspire someone you can win the Nobel Peace Prize? Guess the following all deserves one:
Mr. Rogers – He inspires a whole neighborhood.
Hugh Hefner – He inspires girls to take off their clothes.
Tom Cruise – He inspires Katie Holmes.
Barack Obama – He inspires me to PUKE!
Says a lot about who really deserves a Peace Prize. Once it had been given to Jimmy Carter, it lost it’s illustrious value.
Guess we can plan on it going to the Hollywood industry next. They inspire total unAmerican ways of life.
I think the Nobel Prize is an honor for the President, he was very gracious about accepting it.
Well now, SOP. My “welcome” was genuinely extended/ My suggestion that you spend less time trying to defend Larry (who does seriously fine holding his own) and more time trying to make your own points was also genuine. None of which was delivered with a ‘tude.
It also became ironic since you accused Aye, another FA author, of unfairly picking on Larry, then came back with your snark response saying you felt much “better” hearing a welcome from me, an FA author.
So sorry you felt my genuine “welcome” was worthy of a sarcastic and defensive response from you. Frankly, I don’t know how to take that based on my comments, as little warranted that. Strikes me as you’re a bit short tempered, and misread intents, with too many. That’s a personal characteristic that I won’t lose much sleep over, but will keep in mind should I peruse your future comments.
Seattle actually allows “moderates”? Go no…
Hard Right, I wasn’t disputing your observations of Larry’s erroneous call on Obama being, or selecting “moderates”. As I said, it all depends upon what Larry thinks is a moderate. And if you’ll also notice, I did ask Larry to weigh in on the Obama czar picks right after addressing you… since “moderate” is not an apt description of any of them, IMHO. So you and I aren’t in disagreement there.
Where I give Larry the benefit of the doubt is some of his comment #57 laundry list of conservative traits. He was against the TARP and stimulus, and is on record saying so here. With that I agree.
But if you want specifics on others where Larry and I agree, or disagree…
Agree that gay marriage should not be legal, but don’t have a problem with benefits via civil unions. Agree on the 2nd amendment rights and also agree with him that McCain-Feingold is an assault on Free Speech. And of course I agree that both the Soledad and Mojave Desert crosses should be displayed. I agree with the Alito and Roberts SCOTUS selection, but disagree with his opinions on Sotomayor, and Thomas as a disgrace.
However that’s quite a bit in common to start.
I disagree with Larry that war should be declared only via a poll of public opinion. We citizens are not privvy to intel, nor the threads that connect events and plots. And as I said earlier, I disagree that to “tame” the Congressional beast, we let them spend until the citizens mutiny. Trying to undo that damage is nigh on impossible.
From all I’ve read of Larry, he is a moderate who’s largest flaws are giving Obama too much benefit of the doubt, and favoring a French style health system that I still believe is fiscally unsustainable. Additionally the American proposals are not the French system. It empowers the government with too much data collection on medical records, and too much power to decide who gets treatment, and how much to pay medical professionals. In short, Larry believes the medical profession should be non-profit. I don’t. It is not non-profits that make the lionshare of medical breakthroughs.
So disagree with much? Yup… but there’s far more here in the nation that are considerably more left than Larry.
Lisa, Post #97 – I sympathize with you if you really do feel that way. The selection of Obama was not an accolade. It was an insult. Even the idiots in Norway know Obama is the biggest liar to ever be elected (or bought) and he can’t do anything on his own. He hires thugs for everything. Look at his Czars and Cabinet members. Most are either Communist, or criminals, or tax evaders. Do you really think he deserves a peace award of any kind? Think hard.
Madalyn
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Gosh…again with the thin skinned, poor pitiful me routine.
Larry, I didn’t say that the falsehood was yours….I said you posted it. I have no problem calling you out and applying the appropriate words to you, as well as your posts, when you are purveying myths.
You should know that by now.
The Snopes page that you linked clearly said that there was “no substantive evidence” to support the “rumor that circulated late in 2001″ yet you posted it anyway going on to expound that the supposed nomination of President Bush happened 11 days after his first Inauguration.
The attempt at a clever wording change in your PS in #6 doesn’t change the fact that you are still putting forth a claim that has “no substantive evidence”.
@sickOfPartisanship:
Just to clarify things for you a bit.
Larry posted a claim in #1 above in which he stated:
I asked him in #2 to back that claim up with a list of Nobel Peace Prize recipients which fit that description.
He provided a list of multiple names in #3 which proved to be laughable upon a minimal amount of fact checking.
I then asked him several more times to tell me, specifically, which of the people/organizations he listed were awarded the NPP based solely on good intentions rather than accomplishments.
You’ll notice, there has been no answer.
You see SOP, you’re at a bit of a disadvantage here. Your rather recent arrival deprives you of an understanding of prior, and ongoing, debates between the various names on these pages.
Larry, while appearing reasonable, is an established, proven purveyor of myths. When unchallenged, myths tend to become commonly held beliefs which, in turn, leads to even greater levels of misinformation.
SOP, once you’re here for a bit, you will begin to see patterns emerge. You will begin to see discussion styles more clearly.
You will discover that I fill my posts and my comments with a mixture of sarcasm, humor, factual analysis, and, yes, in your face confrontation. For that I do not apologize. I aggressively seek, defend, and protect the truth and unabashedly pursue/confront those who attempt to pass off information that cannot be factually supported.
I hope that helps you to understand why I challenged Larry on the things that he posted in this thread. At times, he just throws things up on the board that don’t make good sense and I choose to not let it go unchallenged.
I sincerely hope that you will stay awhile. You’ll find a wealth of information here as well as some of the best discussions on the Interwebz.
We have a lot of fun. Sometimes we needle one another…..and, when necessary, we bludgeon.
Don’t let your first impression color your entire opinion. Stick around. Based on the comments you’ve left so far, you’re going to fit right in.
@Aye (#100, 101)
Once again, here’s the chronology:
I wasn’t defending the award to Obama; I was merely explaining it in the context of the history of the Nobel Peace Prize. All the other Nobels are awarded for achievement. The peace prize has often been awarded, at least partially, as a means to encourage and assist the recipient in his goals. I provided a partial list of awardees (e.g. climate change commission; Arafat/Peres; and others) who illustrated this. In a later comment, I readily conceded that Obama’s award represented an extreme example of this.
Now, as another matter, people were incredulous that Obama should be nominated only 12 days after having being inaugurated. I thought that I remembered that President Bush had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. A quick and dirty Google search brought up a Snopes post, in which the (bold letter) conclusion was “TRUE.” The first paragraph of the description stated that Bush was allegedly nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001, only 11 days after taking office; so I “went” with this. However, right after posting, I read over my post and then checked the link, to make sure that I’d gotten it right. This was simply a mechanical check, to make sure that the link worked. I normally do this.
I was surprised to see that the headline conclusion had been changed, from “True” to “Mixed.” Whoops, I said, I’d better read this again. Only upon this second, more careful reading, did I learn the following:
#1. There is NO official list of Nobel Prize nominees. So we don’t know if Bush was nominated in 2001 or 2002 or never or any year after that.
#2. To the extent that any evidence exists that Bush was nominated, the evidence is stronger for 2002 than for 2001.
#3. Nominations for Nobel Peace Prizes don’t mean much. There are in excess of 100 nominations every year, many obviously trivial. So the fact that Obama was nominated only 12 days after his inauguration really isn’t all that remarkable, no matter when, if ever, Bush was nominated.
After a more careful reading of the Snopes post, I went back and revised/corrected my earlier post. Note that I did this less than 5 minutes after the original posting, and I did this before Aye posted his “gotcha” response.
Yes, I made a mistake. A purely honest mistake, which arose out of haste and carelessness in my reading of the original Snopes article. But I caught and corrected the mistake on my own and there was certainly no intent to post a “falsehood.”
With regard to me being “thin skinned” and being a “proven purveyor of myths,” well, I think that this thread is a great, illustrative example of my relationship with Aye, ever since he and I first started communicating on this blog.
The irony is that I really didn’t think that there was anything all that controversial about what I was writing. I was simply making a very simple point, which I think is something widely acknowledged, which is that the Nobel Peace Prize has often been used as a device to encourage certain individuals and movements, as opposed to simply being a reward for a job already completed. I wasn’t defending anything or anyone and I stated, in follow up comments, that the award was given for political purposes. I don’t see any substantive disagreement between my own interpretation of this and the interpretation of most others active on this blogpost, save for the fact that I made my comments without heaping layers of scorn over President Obama, whom I think has “handled” the news of this award with considerable grace.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
P.S. You guys might enjoy this one, from a perhaps surprising source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/daily-show-destroys-cnn-f_n_318295.html
The NY Times (shock) wrote an op ed on N!bama’s prze acceptance. . .to me, this would have been the way to have most gracefully dealt with the award. . .
“This was Barack Obama’s chance.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12douthat.html?_r=3
Also, was it just by chance that N!bama’s schedule was left wide open the entire day –
tge day of the announcement? Perhaps he had knowledge of what was going on? Is the
NPPC going to give him one every year to bend his thinking?
Here’s an editorial which reflects my own points of view (as described earlier) about the Nobel Peace Prize. It discusses the many Peace Prize winners who were “goodists,” defined as mainly writing and talking about how peace is such a good thing. The editorial makes the point that President Obama is not at all an atypical Nobel Peace Prize winner, which was my original point.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748704429304574467080047317314.html
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Any Kool-Aid Left in that tankard?
http://page.politicshome.com/usa/transatlantic_consensus_obama_did_not_deserve_nobel_prize.html
@ Larry
Well Larry, every other communist in the world has embraced him. The Castro boys love him. Chavez said there was no more smell of sulfur at the UN podium, instead he smelled hope. Why shouldn’t the a bunch of Socialists in Norway be any different.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim #104:
Larry, I get your point. However, in the case of President Obama, what has he written or said that is extraordinary in the push toward peace? Reagan’s end goal dream was to also one day eliminate nuclear weapons. President Bush also talked of bringing peace to the world. ALL past U.S. presidents speak in platitudes of world peace and freedom and democracy. So what makes President Obama so different? It’s the projectionism on the part of people, looking for a savior of some sort. It’s the Obama messianic effect that has the world charmed into wanting to believe that there’s something special about this president- romanticizing him as JFK/MLK’s second coming, all rolled up into one. It’s hogwash, and undeserved.
Is that ability to charm and inspire others a trait worthy of a Nobel (after all, the power to believe and have faith can be a positive force of action and change)? If so, then the Nobel is exactly what I think of it: a joke.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Interesting, I just watched that clip this morning, after I read this column from the San Fransisco Examiner. Perhaps the numbers Senator Kyl quoted weren’t so farfetched.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/oped_contributors/Heres-what-is-stopping-tort-reform-64192382.html
My comment is in the spammer. P&T.
@wordsmith (#107):
Firstly, don’t misunderstand what follows. I don’t really disagree with #107. I think that there is a consensus that the decision to award the Prize to Obama was, to be charitable, ill-advised. Yesterday, one of the 5 Norwegians on the Peach Prize panel expressed surprise that Obama didn’t look happy but instead looked uncomfortable when he gave his first public comments regarding his award. I’m sure that Obama would have loved to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, but he’d have greatly preferred for it to come down the road, when it wouldn’t be viewed as a joke.
I did read something else yesterday, however, which was of interest. It turns out that, in Alfred Nobel’s will, the award was to be given (to the person who contributed most, during the past year) to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. The Nobel jury member asked who has done a better job in these areas during the past year than Obama, specifically mentioning the end of the Czech/Polish anti-missile program and the direct outreach to the Islamic world.
Politically speaking, I consider myself to be what George W Bush might call a “compassionate liberterian.” Sort of Ron Paul, but believing in some sort of at least minimal safety net and accepting a role for reasonable regulation by government to maintain a fair (if not level) economic playing field. I despise — equally — borrowing to spend and borrowing to cut taxes. I think that there is more to fear from viewing the Constitution as being a “living document” than viewing it as chiseled in stone, but I think it’s important to have razor-sharp legal minds debating issues from both sides in Supreme Court deliberations. I like the current court balance of 4 to 4, with a conservative-leaning swing vote. I regularly vote for a conservative-liberterian, GOP congressman (Dana Rohrabacher).
So why did I vote for Obama? Simple. For the rest of my life, I’m basing my vote for President on the candidate who will make it less likely that a nuclear bomb will be detonated in Long Beach Harbor. What Obama has done thus far (and for which he received the Peace Prize) has convinced me that I made the correct choice.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Just add to what Wordsmith said in post #107.
It truly is a joke that President Obama is put in the same sentence as MLK. Even if President Obama has nine lives, he couldn’t come anywhere close to what MLK did.
About JFK…there are similarities. Both of them became Presidents on the coat tails of their personal charisma and the famous ‘Daly machine’ of Chicago. President Obama is, at best, JFK lite — without Marilyn Monroe and military service.
As well read as everyone is — you may have read this article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/what_soros_wanted_obama_delive.html
If you haven’t, you may find the some points on Soros intersting. I believe this commentary adds a whole new dimension of possibilities behind the Obama Nobel Peace Prize Award.
Here is an excerpt:___________________________
These words were surely music to Soros’ ears as he has been a lifelong Esperantist in the footsteps of his father. Soros is one of the world’s few native Esperanto speakers and was wont to quell his youthful depression in London’s famous speaker’s corner, proclaiming the virtues of creating the Esperantist version of the tower of Babel in the modern world. For readers who might never have heard of Esperanto, it was the invention of a 19th century Jewish doctor, who dreamed of a world free of nationality. He invented a trans-European language to push the ideology and Soros’ father, Tivadar was one of its leading proponents.
No American president thus far has professed more affinity for this absurd goal than Barack Obama. And he even has the preemptively awarded Nobel Peace Prize to prove it. Whether George Soros had anything to do with the award, we might never know, but it seems mighty darned fishy and definitely in keeping with both Soros’ international influence and his aim of “reorienting America in the world.”
___________________________________
@sickOfPartisanship:
I feel your pain, bro. Trying to be consevative in the great state of Washington, doesn’t allow for being “thin skinned”
Sarge in Elma, Washington
Thanks Sarge. Lucky Dog, you live 88 miles away from Seattle! I am right in the heart of King County and sometimes I wonder what depresses me more…the insistent rain or the irritating/condescending liberals.
But we both live in a state that elects Gregoire as Governor for 2 terms and keeps electing Patty Murray to be one of our Senators. I keep joking with a lot of my liberal friends that when Senator Murray enters a bathroom and shuts the door behind her, she is still not the most intelligent being in the room. The tub, the basin, the toilet, the medicine closet and trash can are way more giften than her.
@sickOfPartisanship:
I’ll see your Murray, Cantwell and Gregoire and raise you Norm Dicks. I think that leaves me a “straight flush”
Sarge
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Hmmm…..Actually, the first paragraph made it very clear that:
Despite the fact that clearly “there was no substantive evidence to support the claim” you “went” with it anyway…..
And before you fall back on, “Oh, the wording was changed after I posted it”…here is a screenshot that I took prior to #8, my very first response to you on this issue:
View at EasyCaptures.com
Here’s a cached version from prior to my screenshot:
View at EasyCaptures.com
Here’s a copy/paste of the Snopes page someone posted on a blog way back in 2004:
View at EasyCaptures.com
Snopes said “Bush wasn’t amonst the nominees…in 2001″ and later said there was “no substantive evidence to support the claim” yet you have put it forth over and over and over again with no attempt whatsoever to point out that what you were typing was unsupported by any evidence.
Even in your most recent post you continue to try and make the words on the Snopes page fit what you need them to say.
The clever attempt at myth purveyance is detailed out right there. There’s not a version of the Snopes page which supports what you typed, even with the clever parsing that you added later.
Screenshots and caches are handy for this sort of thing. They remove the guesswork and the wiggle room.
As to the remainder of what you have posted on this thread, I’m still waiting for you to point out specifically which people, or organizations, in your carefully parsed list of Nobel recipients received the prize for good intentions rather than accomplishments.
You keep saying its’ true. You should be able to prove it.
Of course, if you want to change your mind now and say that your conclusion is unsupported by the facts then you can do that.
@Aye: Did you ever consider the advantages of actually getting a life?
I stand behind everything I wrote on this thread. My comment in # 102 is my final statement on this matter. It’s 100% true.
- Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Did you ever consider the advantages of telling the truth prior to having your lack of integrity put in the spotlight?
You can say that you stand behind what you type, but that doesn’t remove the dishonesty and blatantly false representation of the facts.
The screen shots and the cached version of the web page expose your words for what they are.
@aye (#118):
I am satisfied to have the record of this thread be as it is.
You are the poster child for toxic political discourse. You shamelessly twist and distort.
It’s now out there, for all to see.
Not that anyone cares.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Projection much?
Aye, larry has already shown he will not admit to being wrong, especially when it involves his defense of his messiah.
Pingback: Still Negative Double Digits: Disapproval of Obama Continues, Despite Nobel Peace Prize — Steven Crowder Weighs in with Funny Peace Prize Rap Video « Frugal Café Blog Zone